Bendable, creasable, and printable batteries with enhanced safety and high temperture stability - methods of fabrication, and methods of using the same

ABSTRACT

A method forming a composite electrolyte by preparing a suspension. The suspension includes a solvent (comprising 90 wt % to 95 wt % of a total weight of liquids); a non-solvent (comprising 5 wt % to 50 wt % of a total weight of liquids); a binder (comprising 20 wt % to 50 wt % of a total weight of the composite electrolyte) and selected from the group consisting of PVDF, PVDF-HFP, PFTE, PEO, PMMA, PAN, CNC, SBR, and combinations thereof; and a ceramic filler (comprising 50 wt % to 80 wt % of the total weight of the composite electrolyte) having a cross-section diameter ranging from 50 nm to 150 nm and being selected from the group consisting of Al2O3, SiO2, TiO2, MgO, Li2O, LiAlO2, BaTiO3, LaGP, LATP, LLTO, and combinations thereof. The suspension is cast or printed and dried.

This application is a divisional of U.S. application Ser. No. 16/310,248filed Dec. 14, 2018, which claimed the benefit of and priority toInternational Application No. PCT/US17/37509, filed on Jun. 14, 2017,which claimed priority to Provisional Application Ser. No. 62/353,918,filed Jun. 23, 2016. This application is also related to U.S.application Ser. No. 15/622,998 and U.S. application Ser. No.15/623,044, both of which are filed on Jun. 14, 2017. The disclosure ofeach of these applications is expressly incorporated herein byreference, each in its entirety.

RIGHTS OF THE GOVERNMENT

The invention described herein may be manufactured and used by or forthe Government of the United States for all governmental purposeswithout the payment of any royalty.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates generally to batteries and, moreparticularly, to flexible, creasable, printable, high temperaturebatteries, components of the same, and methods of preparing componentsof the same.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Flexible energy storage is a widely recognized necessity to powering thenext generation of portable and flexible electronic devices, such assensors, smart skins for human performance monitoring, radio frequencyID tags, and wearable electronics. Conventional batteries based on metalfoil current collectors (“CCs”) are too rigid and incompatible tosustain operation with repeated flexing and folding. The metal foil CCcontributes to a significant proportion of a conventional battery'stotal weight (anywhere from 15% to 80%), which reduces overall energydensity and performance, and is prone to corrosion.

To overcome these difficulties, alternative designs and substratematerials have been proposed, including carbon nanotubes (“CNTs”),graphene, textiles, and paper. These materials are flexible, lightweight, have high mechanical strength, are generally chemically-stable,and some have good electrical conductivity. While promising progress isbeing made, the development of a flexible, bendable, and creasabledevice that maintains high performance, even when exposed to harshenvironmental and mechanical conditions, is still a significantchallenge.

There have been two conventional approaches to creating flexiblebatteries: (1) fabricating the battery components to be thin or (2)building free-standing, composite electrodes by growing,functionalizing, or embedding active material into a flexible,conductive scaffold. The first approach is limited because merelyreducing the thickness of conventional battery components also reducespower capacity and capability. The second approach is advantageous inthat the rigid, metal foil substrate may, in some circumstances, bealtogether removed. For example, FIG. 1A illustrates a full-cell 50having electrode having CCs 52, 58, each with an electrode material 54,56 applied thereon, and an ion permeable membrane 60 between therespective CCs 52, 58 and electrode materials 54, 56. The full-cell 50may then, optionally, be encapsulated in a flexible barrier 62, such asSURLYN (E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., Wilmington, Del.) or analuminum-polymer pouch.

The electrode material 56, shown in greater detail in FIG. 1B, isconventionally comprised of a conductive additive 64 (such as carbonblack, graphite, carbon nanofibers (“CNFs”), or carbon nanotubes(“CNTs”)), an active material 66 (such as LiFePO₄, LiCoO₂, LiMn₂O₄,LiNiMnCoO₂, Li₄Ti₅O₁₂, graphite, silicon, or CNFs for lithium ionbatteries), and polyvinylidene fluoride (“PVDF”) as a binder 68. The CC52 is generally non-porous (or only slightly porous). The illustrated CC52 is constructed from aluminum or copper.

There has been some steady progress in the fabrication of compositeelectrodes using a variety of methods, such as vacuum filtration, hotpressing, drop casting, doctor blading, electrospinning, orfreeze-drying; however, most are manufactured by batch processes thatoften limit deposition to two-dimensional substrates. Additionally,materials fabricated by such methods are often inherently brittle,presumptively due to a lack of binder and higher active material loading(often greater than 90 wt %), which leads to limited utility in flexibleor stretchable applications.

Another difficulty associated with conventional batteries is directed toform: specifically, cylindrical or prismatic. One proposed solution hasbeen to adopt unique spatial arrangements of rigid battery packs toenable some deformation without performance loss. However, the range ofmotion of these devices is restricted, and the conventional metal foilCCs are susceptible to crack formation and damage.

Further, conventional polyolefin separators require multiple processingsteps (i.e., melt extrusion and stretching) for proper functionality.Such processing renders these conventional polyolefin separatorsunsuitable for batteries prepared exclusively with additivemanufacturing.

An alternative approach is to build printable energy storage solutions.Printing capabilities could greatly simplify the manufacturing processfor conventional batteries (for example, lithium ion batteries) and mayenable direct integration of a power source into its correspondingdevice during the fabrication process. Direct write manufacturingtechniques are an effective method to creating complex, multifunctionalstructures. And, unlike most printing techniques commonly adopted forbatteries (such as stencil printing, screen printing, and sprayprinting), solution cast-direct write printing does not require masking,material removal, or processes to aerosolize or otherwise reduceparticle size of solids in the ink. If composite electrode materialscould retain suitable rheological properties, then these printingtechniques (filamentary, ink jet, or aerosol jet printing) could beused. Such template-free printing techniques offer an economical,scalable approach to rapid prototyping of battery electrodes andarchitectures that can be patterned to fit a specific application oreven directly printed on a device. Printing offers the utilization ofconfined or nonplanar substrates as power sources.

Beyond ease of fabrication, there is an increasing demand for secondaryenergy storage devices operable in high temperature environments(ranging from 60° C. to 300° C.) for applications in grid storage,automotive, aviation, medical and oil industries. For example, powersources are needed for high temperature electronics operated nearengines (where temperatures can reach 150° C.,) for medical devices thatcan withstand a 120° C. autoclave, and for energy storage for desertphotovoltaic devices (where battery temperatures can reach temperaturesin excess of 60° C.). Lithium-thionyl chloride batteries are typicallyused for high temperature application today (operational temperaturerange of −60° C. to 150° C.); however, lithium-thionyl chloride battersare not rechargeable and thionyl chloride is both toxic and reactivewith water. Conventional, rechargeable Li-ion batteries have thepotential to meet the needs of these applications due to their highenergy density, high operating voltage, and long lifetime, but severalof the components of these conventional Li-ion batteries are not suitedfor the aforementioned, thermally-demanding conditions that often leadto accelerated cell failure. Conventional Li-ion batteries have beenused in some harsh, thermal environments applications, such as solargrid storage or electric vehicles, but such applications require thermalmanagement systems to prevent the battery from overheating. The thermalmanagement systems not only take up unnecessary space, but are expensiveand account for 8% to 12% of the total battery cost.

Despite such efforts to compensate for overheating, components ofconventional Li-ion batteries are generally unable to achieve stable,long-term, high temperature (greater than 50° C.) operation. Organicelectrolytes are limited to temperatures not exceeding 50° C. due todecomposition of the lithium hexafluoro-phosphate (“LiPF₆”) salt. Manyof the carbonates used in common liquid electrolyte blends, such asdimethyl carbonate (“DMC”), diethyl carbonate (“DEC”), and ethylmethylcarbonate (“EMC”), have low boiling points (less than 130° C.) and flashpoints (about room temperature). Therefore flammability and highinternal cell pressure, especially at elevated temperature, are aconcern with these carbonates. Conventional polyolefin separatorstypically possess a thermal shutdown temperature (less than 120° C.) dueto thermally induced shrinkage or melting to close pores and the cellwill not function above this temperature. If a temperature of thepolyolefin separator reaches higher temperatures (e.g., greater than200° C.), or the flammable polyolefin structure catches fire,catastrophic shrinkage ensues, which brings the electrodes into contactand initiates thermal runaway. Large shrinkage of commercial polyolefinseparators can be explained by shape recovery behavior resulting fromthe stretching during manufacturing to generate desired porosity for iontransport.

Therefore, there remains a need for improved methods and designs offlexible, creasable, printable battery components and composite devices,or components or devices having combinations of such improved features.Moreover, there is a further need for such components and compositedevices to be operational, safely, at high temperatures.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention overcomes the foregoing problems and othershortcomings, drawbacks, and challenges of conventional batteries byoffering flexible, creasable, printable, batteries and componentsbatteries, or combinations thereof. Additionally, the batteries andcomponents of batteries as described herein are operable at a wide rangeof temperatures with enhanced safety properties. While the inventionwill be described in connection with certain embodiments, it will beunderstood that the invention is not limited to these embodiments. Tothe contrary, this invention includes all alternatives, modifications,and equivalents as may be included within the spirit and scope of thepresent invention.

According to an embodiment of the present invention, a compositeelectrode includes an active material, a conductive additive, a binder,and a solvent. The composite electrode may be cast or printed.

Other embodiments of the present invention include a battery having acathode, an anode, a separator, and an electrolyte. The cathode is acomposite electrode having a LiFePO₄ active material, a conductiveadditive, a binder, and a solvent. The separator is positioned betweenthe cathode and the anode.

For still other embodiments of the present invention, a method offabricating a composite electrode includes preparing a suspension havingan active material, a conductive additive, a binder, and a solvent. Thesuspension is cast or printed and dried.

Additional objects, advantages, and novel features of the invention willbe set forth in part in the description which follows, and in part willbecome apparent to those skilled in the art upon examination of thefollowing or may be learned by practice of the invention. The objectsand advantages of the invention may be realized and attained by means ofthe instrumentalities and combinations particularly pointed out in theappended claims.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The accompanying drawings, which are incorporated in and constitute apart of this specification, illustrate embodiments of the presentinvention and, together with a general description of the inventiongiven above, and the detailed description of the embodiments givenbelow, serve to explain the principles of the present invention.

FIG. 1A is a schematic illustration of a conventional electrodeaccording to the prior art.

FIG. 1B is an enlargement of a portion of the conventional electrode ofFIG. 1A.

FIG. 2 is a flowchart illustrating a method of preparing an electrodeaccording to an embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 3 is a side elevational view of a doctor blade process used in themethod of FIG. 2.

FIG. 4 is an enlarged, schematic illustration of an electrode preparedin accordance with the method of FIG. 2.

FIG. 5 is a cross-sectional view of a battery cell having a multi-walledcarbon nanotube electrode prepared in accordance with an embodiment ofthe present invention.

FIG. 6 is a flowchart illustrating a method of fabricating a compositeelectrode in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 7 is an enlarged, cross-sectional view of a composite suspensionprepared in accordance with the method of FIG. 6.

FIG. 8 is a side elevational view of a casting method used in thepreparing the composite electrode of FIG. 6.

FIG. 9 is a perspective, schematic representation of a print method ofpreparing the composite electrode FIG. 6.

FIG. 10 is a schematic illustration, in cross-section, of a full-cellhaving a composite cathode and a composite anode prepared in accordancewith embodiments of the present invention.

FIG. 11 is a flowchart illustrating a method of fabricating a compositeelectrolyte according to another embodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 12 is a top-side view of a flex durability tester according to anembodiment of the present invention.

FIG. 13 is side elevational view of a mandrel of the flex durabilitytester of FIG. 12, shown in cross section with a flexible batterycomponent coupled thereto.

FIG. 14 is a perspective view of the mandrel with the flexible batterycomponent of FIG. 13.

FIG. 15 is a schematic representation of a relationship between tensionand compression forces applied to the flexible battery component rolledand unrolled about the mandrel in FIGS. 13 and 14.

FIG. 16 is a scanning electron microscopy image of a multi-walled carbonnanotube current collector prepared in accordance with an embodiment ofthe present invention.

FIG. 17 is a transmission electron microscopy image of the multi-walledcarbon nanotube current collector of FIG. 16.

FIGS. 18 and 19 are scanning electron microscopy images of amulti-walled carbon nanotube electrode prepared in accordance with anembodiment of the present invention and a conventional foil-basedcurrent collector, respectively.

FIGS. 18A and 19A are enlargements of the portions enclosed in FIGS. 18and 19, respectively.

FIG. 20 is a graphical representation of specific capacity performancehalf-cells, one prepared in accordance with embodiments of the presentinvention, and one prepared according to conventional methods.

FIG. 21 is a side elevational view, in cross-section, of a 2325 coincell configuration suitable for use with embodiments of the presentinvention.

FIG. 21A is an exploded view of the 2325 coin cell of FIG. 20.

FIG. 22 is a graphical representation of the cycling behavior ofhalf-cells, one prepared in accordance with embodiments of the presentinvention, and one prepared according to conventional methods, at aconstant C/5 current rate.

FIGS. 23 and 24 graphically illustrate results from half-cell rateperformance studies, one prepared in accordance with embodiments of thepresent invention and one prepared according to conventional methods,respectively.

FIG. 25 is a graphical representation of charge and discharge profilesof half- and full-cells having multi-walled carbon nanotube currentcollectors prepared in accordance with an embodiment of the presentinvention.

FIG. 26 is a graphical representation of the energy density of afull-cell battery having multi-walled carbon nanotube current collectorsprepared in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention and afull-cell battery having conventional foil-based current collectors.

FIG. 27 are graphical representations of the discharge voltages measuredduring flexibility testing of a cell having a multi-walled carbonnanotube current collectors according to embodiments of the presentinvention and of a cell having a metal foil current collectors accordingto conventional methods.

FIG. 28 is a perspective view of a sequential folding and unfoldingprocess used for evaluating conventional cells and cells preparedaccording to embodiments of the present invention.

FIG. 29 is a graphical representation of discharge voltage of a flexcell having multi-walled carbon nanotube current collectors according toembodiments of the present invention during the folding and unfoldingprocess of FIG. 28.

FIGS. 29A and 29B are enlargements of respectively enclosed portions inFIG. 29.

FIGS. 30 and 31 are photographs of electrodes prepared according toembodiments of the present invention with LiFePO₄ or Li₄Ti₅O₁₂,respectively, and having multi-walled carbon nanotube current collectorsafter completion of the folding and unfolding test of FIGS. 28 and 29.

FIG. 32 is a graphical representation of the discharge voltage change ofa cell having conventional, foil-based current collectors during thefolding and unfolding process of FIGS. 28 and 29.

FIGS. 33 and 34 are photographs of electrodes having a conventional,foil-based current collectors after completion of the folding andunfolding test of FIGS. 28 and 29.

FIG. 35 is a top view of a schematic illustration of a folding processused to evaluating conventional cells and cells prepared according toembodiments of the present invention.

FIGS. 36 and 37 are graphical representation of discharge voltage ofcells having multi-walled carbon nanotube and of cells havingconventional, foil-based current collectors, respectively, during thefolding test procedure of FIG. 35.

FIGS. 36A-37B are enlargements of enclosed portions illustrated,respectively, in FIGS. 36 and 37.

FIGS. 38 and 39 are photographs of an electrode having LiFePO₄ on amulti-walled carbon nanotube current collector prepared according to anembodiment of the present invention, and an electrode having LiFePO₄ ona conventional, aluminum-foil current collector, respectively.

FIGS. 38A and 39A are enlargements of portions indicated by an asteriskin FIGS. 38 and 39, respectively.

FIGS. 38B and 39B are scanning electron microscopy images of fold lines,indicated by an asterisk, of the cells of FIGS. 38 and 39, respectively,acquired after cryo-fracturing in a direction perpendicular to the foldline.

FIG. 40 is a graphical representation of the mechanical behavior ofcurrent collectors comprising aluminum-foil, copper-foil, andmulti-walled carbon nanotube mat (the latter being according to anembodiment of the present invention) during uni-axial tensile testing.

FIGS. 41 and 42 are graphical representations of mechanical behavior ofaluminum foil, copper foil, and multi-walled carbon nanotube currentcollectors with active material coatings thereon.

FIG. 43 is a graphical representation of the electrochemical performanceof Li₄Ti₅O₁₂ composite electrodes prepared in accordance withembodiments of the present invention.

FIG. 44 is a graphical representation of an effect of binder loading oncharge and discharge profiles of Li₄Ti₅O₁₂ composite electrodes preparedin accordance with embodiments of the present invention.

FIG. 45 is a graphical representation of Nyquist plots for Li₄Ti₅O₁₂composite electrodes prepared in accordance with embodiments of thepresent invention.

FIG. 46 is a graphical representation of lithium ion diffusivity basedon the Nyquist plots of FIG. 45.

FIG. 47 is an equivalent circuit diagram of a setup used forquantitative analysis of variation in impedance of Li₄Ti₅O₁₂ compositeelectrodes prepared in accordance with embodiments of the presentinvention.

FIG. 48 is a graphical representation of specific capacities ofLi₄Ti₅O₁₂ composite electrodes prepared in accordance with embodimentsof the present invention.

FIG. 49 is a graphical representation of N₂ adsorption and desorptionisotherms of Li₄Ti₅O₁₂ composite electrodes prepared in accordance withembodiments of the present invention.

FIG. 50 is a graphical representation comparing stress-strain curves fortensile strength of Li₄Ti₅O₁₂ composite electrodes prepared inaccordance with embodiments of the present invention.

FIGS. 51 and 52 are graphical representations of tensile strength andstrain-to-failure of Li₄Ti₅O₁₂ composite electrodes prepared inaccordance with embodiments of the present invention.

FIGS. 53 and 54 are scanning electron microscopy images of electrodesprepared in accordance with embodiments of the present invention.

FIGS. 53A and 54A are enlargements of enclosed portions of FIGS. 53 and54, respectively.

FIG. 55 is a graphical representation of rate performances of compositeelectrodes prepared in accordance with embodiments of the presentinvention.

FIG. 56 is a graphical representation of cycling performances ofcomposite electrodes prepared in accordance with embodiments of thepresent invention.

FIG. 57 is a graphical representation of stable charge and dischargeprofiles observed in composite electrodes prepared in accordance withembodiments of the present invention.

FIG. 58 is a graphical representation of cycling performance for carbonnanofiber composite electrodes prepared in accordance with embodimentsof the present invention.

FIG. 59 is a graphical representation of charge and discharge profilesfor carbon nanofiber composite electrodes prepared in accordance withembodiments of the present invention.

FIG. 60 is a graphical representation of cycling performance for carbonnanofiber composite electrodes prepared in accordance with embodimentsof the present invention.

FIG. 61 is a graphical representation of rate performance of a printedLi₄Ti₅O₁₂ composite electrode prepared in accordance with embodiments ofthe present invention.

FIGS. 62 and 63 are photographs of patterns printed using composite inksprepared in accordance with embodiments of the present invention.

FIG. 64 is a graphical representation of viscosity as a function ofshear rate of electrolyte inks prepared in accordance with embodimentsof the present invention.

FIGS. 65A, 65C, and 65E scanning electron microscopy images ofelectrolytes prepared in accordance with embodiments of the presentinvention, the images acquired after cryo-fracturing the electrolytes.

FIGS. 65B, 65D, and 65F are enlargements of portions of FIGS. 65A, 65C,and 65E, respectively.

FIGS. 66A-66C are side elevation views of schematic model of voids andpores within composite electrodes, corresponding to FIGS. 65A, 65C, and65E, respectively.

FIG. 67 is a graphical representation of N₂ adsorption and desorptionisotherms of electrolyte membranes prepared in accordance withembodiments of the present invention.

FIG. 68 is a graphical representation of mechanical behavior forcomposite electrolyte membranes prepared in accordance with embodimentsof the present invention.

FIGS. 69-71 are graphical representations of modulus, tensile strength,and strain of electrolyte membranes prepared in accordance withembodiments of the present invention.

FIG. 72 is a graphical representation comparing thermal properties of acomposite electrolyte membrane prepared in accordance with embodimentsof the present invention to a corresponding membrane comprisingcommercially-available CELGARD 2325.

FIG. 73 is a graphical representation comparing temperature-dependenceof ionic conductivity for electrolyte membranes prepared in accordancewith embodiments of the present invention to a corresponding membranecomprising commercially-available CELGARD 2325.

FIGS. 74 and 75 are graphical representations of rate performance andcorresponding voltage profiles for composite electrolyte membranesprepared in accordance with embodiments of the present invention ascompared to commercially-available CELGARD 2325.

FIGS. 76A-76E are a graphical representation comparing electricalperformance and dendritic failure of electrolyte membranes prepared inaccordance with embodiments of the present invention as compared tocommercially-available CELGARD 2325.

FIG. 77 is a graphical representation comparing electrochemicalperformance of composite electrolyte membranes prepared in accordancewith embodiments of the present invention to a corresponding membranecomprising CELGARD 2325 over 100 cycles at a C/5 current rate.

FIG. 78 is a scanning electron microscopy image of a compositeelectrolyte membrane comprising CPE-PI over a composite cathodecomprising LiFePO₄.

FIG. 79 is a graphical representation of electrochemical performance ofcomposite electrolyte comprising PEMA as it conforms to a porous,composite electrode.

FIGS. 80 and 81 are graphical representations illustrating changes incapacity and mechanical properties of composite electrodes prepared inaccordance with embodiments of the present invention with the additionof glycerol.

FIGS. 82 and 83 are cross-sectional scanning electron microscopy imagesof composite electrodes, with and without the addition of glycerol,prepared in accordance with embodiments of the present invention.

FIG. 84 is a cross-sectional scanning electron microscopy image of anelectrolyte after cryo-fracturing samples while immersed in liquidnitrogen.

FIGS. 85A and 86A are graphical representations of electrochemicalperformance of LiFePO₄ and Li₄Ti₅O₁₂ composite half-cells, respectively,prepared in accordance with embodiments of the present invention at 20°C. and 120° C. using 1 M LiTFSI in PC electrolyte.

FIGS. 85B and 86B are graphical representations of charge/dischargeprofiles of the composite half-cells of FIGS. 85A and 86A, respectively.

FIG. 87 is a graphical representation of the electrochemical performanceof a half-cell comprising a commercially-available separator at 120° C.

FIGS. 88A and 88B are graphical representations of electrochemicalperformance of LiFePO₄ half-cells prepared in accordance withembodiments of the present invention, operating at temperatures rangingfrom 25° C. to 120° C., using a room temperature ionic liquidelectrolyte.

FIGS. 89A and 89B are graphical representations of electrochemicalperformance of a commercially-available graphite anode on copper foilanode half-cell and LiBOB-based electrolyte, according to embodiments ofthe present invention, at 120° C.

FIG. 90A and 90B are graphical representations of electrochemicalperformance of a LiFePO₄/graphite/PVDF cathode on aluminum half-cellwith the LiBOB-based electrolyte, according to embodiments of thepresent invention, at 120° C.

FIG. 91A-91C are graphical representations of electrochemicalperformance of a graphite//LiFePO₄ full-cell with the LiBOB-basedelectrolyte, according to embodiments of the present invention, at roomtemperature and at 120° C.

FIGS. 92A and 92B are graphical representations of electrochemicalperformance of a graphite//LiFePO₄ cell with 1 M LiBOB in 1/1 EC/PC and5% VC.

FIGS. 93A-93D are graphical representations of variable temperatureelectrochemical performance of a graphite//LiFePO₄ full-cell with theLiBOB-based electrolyte according to embodiments of the presentinvention, compared to a graphite//LiFePO₄ full-cell with acommercially-available LP40 (1 M LiPF₆ in 1/1 EC/DEC by wt.) and CELGARD2325.

FIGS. 94A and 94B illustrate a conventional CELGARD 2325 separator with1 M LiPF6 in 1/1 EC/DEC and a CPE-PI separator with 1 M LiBOB in 1/1PC/EC and 5% VC, according to embodiments of the present invention,before and after exposing each separator to a flame.

FIGS. 95A and 9B illustrate two dry, conventional CELGARD 2325separators and a dry CPE-PI separator, according to an embodiment of thepresent invention, before and after exposing each separator to a flame.

It should be understood that the appended drawings are not necessarilyto scale, presenting a somewhat simplified representation of variousfeatures illustrative of the basic principles of the invention. Thespecific design features of the sequence of operations as disclosedherein, including, for example, specific dimensions, orientations,locations, and shapes of various illustrated components, will bedetermined in part by the particular intended application and useenvironment. Certain features of the illustrated embodiments have beenenlarged or distorted relative to others to facilitate visualization andclear understanding. In particular, thin features may be thickened, forexample, for clarity or illustration.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

With reference now to the figures, materials, composites, methods forprocessing, and methods for fabricating flexible battery components andflexible batteries according to the various embodiments of the presentinvention are described. With particular reference to FIGS. 2-4, aflowchart 70 illustrating a method of preparing an electrode 72 inaccordance with an embodiment of the present invention is shown. Atstart, a porous substrate 74 is selected (Block 74), which may compriseany porous material, such as nonwovens (for example, the illustratedsubstrate 74 includes multi-walled CNTs 75 (“MWNTs”)), graphene,textiles, paper, metal meshes, or arrays of metallic nanowires (forexample, silver or nickel). A commercially-available nonwoven matsuitable for use herein may include MIRALON (Nanocomp Technologies,Inc., Merrimack, N.H.).

A suitable electrode material slurry 78 may then be prepared forapplication to the porous substrate 74 (Block 80). According to theillustrated embodiment of the present invention, the slurry 78 comprisesan active material 81 (here, the active material 81 is a lithium-basednanoparticle; however, other active materials 81 for other applicationswould be understood by those of ordinary skill in the art having thebenefit of the disclosure herein), a conductive additive 83, a binder 85(for example, a polymer), and an electrolyte (not shown). For purposesof illustration herein, lithium ion cathodes may be prepared from aslurry 78 that includes lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO₄) active materialwith a conductive additive and a binder in an organic solvent; anodesmay be prepared via a slurry 78 that includes lithium titanate(Li₄Ti₅O₁₂) active material with a conductive additive and a binder inan organic solvent. Other appropriate active materials may include, forexample, lithium cobalt oxide (LiCoO₂), lithium manganese oxide(LiMn₂O₄), (LiFePO₄), lithium nickel manganese oxide (LiNiMnCoO₂),graphite, silicon, and so forth.

Conductive additives 83 of the slurry 78 facilitate electronic transportand should, therefore, be conductive. Exemplary conductive additives 83may include, for example, any carbon-based materials (for example,carbon black or graphite) or metallic fillers (for example, Al, Cu, Ag,or Ni) having high conductivity and configured to provide a percolativenetwork. For the particular embodiments of the present invention heredescribed, suitable conductive additives may include graphite, carbonblack, CNTs, CNFs, and so forth.

The binder 83 of the slurry 78 may be any chemical system configured toprovide adhesion, mechanical support, and flexibility. Appropriateexamples of the binder 83 may include PVDF, polyvinylidenefluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene (“PVDF-HFP”), polytetrafluoroethylene(“PTFE”), styrene-butadiene rubber (“SBR”), carboxymethyl cellulose(“CMC”), and so forth.

Suitable organic solvents of the slurry 78 may includeN-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (“NMP”), dimethylformamide (“DMF”), acetone,dimethylacetamide (DMAc), tetramethyl urea, dimethyl sulfoxide (“DMSO”),triethyl phosphate, and mixtures thereof.

Generally, the slurry 78 is prepared with a ratio of activematerial/conductive additive/binder, suitable ratios may be, forexample, 93/4/3 or 70/20/10. However, the amounts of active material 81may range from 70 wt % to 99 wt %, the amounts of conductive additive 83may range from 0.5 wt % to 20 wt %, and the amounts of binder 85 mayrange from 0.5 wt % to 10 wt %. According to yet other embodiments, theamounts of active material 81 may range from 70 wt % to 99 wt %, theamounts of conductive additive 83 may range from 1 wt % to 20 wt %, andthe amounts of binder 85 may range from 0 wt % to 10 wt %.

The slurry 78 may then be applied to the porous substrate 74 (Block 82).As illustrated in FIG. 3, the application method includes a doctor blade84 (however, other methods may be appropriate, including slot-diecoating, touch on screen, and stencil printing) to yield a thicknessranging from 20 μm to 200 μm, or, more particularly, from 50 μm to 60μm. The electrode material slurry 78 and the substrate 74 are then driedin vacuo (Block 86) to yield the electrode 72.

The electrolyte is not specifically shown in FIG. 4, but would fillspaces between each the active material 81, the conductive additive 83,and the binder 85 and spaces, voids, and pores of the porous substrate74. The electrolyte may include any appropriate electrolyte, which wouldreadily be determined by one having ordinary skill in the art, butcould, for purposes of the various illustrated embodiments, includeLiPF₆ in a carbonate or a carbonate mixture. The carbonate may be, forexample, ethylene carbonate (“EC”), DEC, DMC, EMC, or propylenecarbonate (“PC”).

Referring now to FIG. 2, with reference to FIG. 5, the electrode 72(FIG. 4) may optionally be used in preparing a battery cell 98 (Block100). The battery cell 98 may include a first electrode (hereafter, ananode 102) and a second electrode (hereafter, a cathode 104), with atleast one of the anode 102 and cathode 104 being prepared in accordancewith an embodiment of the present invention. As specificallyillustrated, the anode 102 and cathode 104 each includes MWNT as theporous substrate 74, 74′ with the dried slurry 78, 78′ thereon and aseparator 106 positioned therebetween such that the dried slurries 78,78′ are adjacent to opposing sides of the separator 106. The separator106 is generally a material that is porous to ions and typicallycomprise layers of uniaxially- or biaxially-stretched polyolefins(polyethylene, polypropylene, and so forth) with a thickness rangingfrom about 10 μm to about 30 μm.

Turning now to FIG. 6, with reference to FIGS. 7 and 8, a flowchart 108illustrating a method of fabricating a composite electrode 110 inaccordance with an embodiment of the present invention is shown. Atstart, a functionality of the composite electrode 110 is determined(Block 112), wherein such functionalities may include a composite anodeversus a composite cathode, a castable composite electrode versus aprintable composite electrode, and so forth. As set forth in greaterdetail in Table 1, additional features of the composite electrode 110may be specifically tailored, including both mechanical andelectrochemical properties.

With desired functionality determined, a composite suspension 114 may beprepared (Block 116). While specific compositions and ratios of theelements comprising the composite suspension 114 may vary, thesuspension 114 may generally include an active material 118, aconductive additive 120, a binder 122, and a solvent (not shown).

Composition of the active material 118 depends, at least in part, on afunctionality of the electrode 110 being prepared and whether an anodeor a cathode is desired. For purposes of illustration herein, the activematerial 118 may include Li₄Ti₅O₁₂, LiFePO₄, LiCoO₂, and so forth.Amounts of the active material may range from 25 wt % to 80 wt %.

The conductive additive 120 facilitates electronic transport and should,therefore, be conductive. Exemplary conductive additives may include,for example, any carbon-based material or metallic filler (for example,Al, Cu, Ag, and Ni) having high conductivity and configured to provide apercolative network. For purposes of illustration herein, the conductiveadditive 120 includes CNFs, providing high conductivity (greater than1000 S/cm), a large aspect ratio (50 nm to 150 nm diameter with lengthsof up to 100 μm), and large tensile strength (greater than 2 GPa). Theconductive additive 120, particularly CNFs, may further aid inestablishing a porous scaffolding that promotes ion diffusion. An amountof the conductive additive may range from 10 wt % to 40 wt %.

While a composition of the binder 122 may vary, as would be known bythose of ordinary skill in the art, the binder 122 may generally includeany chemical system configurable to provide adhesion, mechanicalsupport, and flexibility. According to particular exemplary embodimentsof the present invention, as described herein, the binder 122 mayinclude those described above with reference to the electrode 72 (FIG.4) and, more specifically, PVDF. An amount of the binder 122 may rangefrom 10 wt % to 50 wt %.

TABLE 1 Active Conductive Optional material additive Binder SolventNon-solvent Anode Li₄Ti₅O₁₂ CNF PVDF NMP Glycerol Graphite GraphitePVDF-HFP DMF Water CNF Carbon black PTFE DMAc EtOH Silicon Metallicfdlers PEO Tetramethyl urea MetOH Cathode LiFePO₄ (Al, Cu, Ag, PMMA DMSOEthylene glycol LiCoO₂ Ni, etc.) PAN Triethyl phosphate Diethyleneglycol LiMn₂O₄ Triethylene glycol LiNiMnCoO₂ Hexane Heptane

Suitable solvents include those in which the binder 122 may be dissolvedand stable over a period to time (such as for use as an ink, ifdesired). Specifically, as described herein, NMP, may be preferred.While non-solvent elections are more applicable to electrolytefabrication, described in greater detail below, if a non-solvent isselected for preparing the composite electrode 110, then the weightfraction of non-solvent to solvent may range from 0.0 wt % to 30 wt %.

In preparing the suspension 114, the binder 122 may be dissolved in thesolvent. The conductive additive 120, may be added to the solution. Themanner by which the suspension is mixed may include shaking, sonication,and so forth. Selection of the active material 118, as described in thisspecific embodiment, is dependent on whether the suspension 114 is toproduce a cathode or an anode, may then be added to the well-dispersedsuspension. Again, the suspension 114 may be mixed.

Referring still to FIGS. 6-8, and once the suspension 114 is prepared, adecision is made as to whether the suspension 114 will be printed orcast (Decision Block 124), based, at least in part, in the functionalityselected in Block 112. If casting is desired (“Cast” branch of DecisionBlock 124), then the suspension 114 may be transferred from a container126 (mixing or storage) to a suitable casting dish 128 (Block 130). Thecasting dish 128 may include any suitable container constructed from aninert material (such as glass, metal, or plastic), but for purposes ofillustration herein, the casting dish 128 is a PTFE-based Petri dish.The suspension 114 may then be dried (Block 132), or the solventotherwise evaporated off. According to some embodiments of the presentinvention, drying may include two steps, such as drying at 90° C. underinert atmosphere and then drying under vacuum at 120° C. After thesolvent is fully evaporated, a cast disc 138 may be removed from thecasting dish 128.

If printing is desired (“Print” branch of Decision Block 124), and asshown in FIG. 9, then the suspension 114 may be transferred to an inkwell 136 that is operably coupled to a print head 138, which may includeany suitable direct ink write device, such as filamentary, ink jet,aerosol jet, stencil print, or screen print, for example. The suspension114 is printed (Block 140), for example, onto a substrate 142. Accordingto some embodiments of the present invention, a stationary print head138 may print the suspension 114 onto a moveable substrate 142 (moveswith respect to the print head 138) or vice versa as specifically shownin FIG. 9. In either case, printing may occur along x- and y-axes of thesubstrate 142 to produce a print 144 on the substrate 142. Suitablesubstrates 142 may include rigid or flexible materials, including butnot limited to glass, polymers, metals, meshes, fabrics, and so forth.Thereafter, the print 144 is dried (Block 132), or the solvent otherwiseevaporated off

Regardless of the final shape, whether the cast disc 138 (FIG. 8) or theprint 144 (FIG. 9), FIG. 7 illustrates a structure of the compositeelectrode 110 having the active material 118, the conductive additive120, and the binder 122. While not specifically illustrated, it would beunderstood that a suitable electrolyte could be added, intercalate into,and at least partially fill the spaces, voids, or pores between orwithin the active material 118, the conductive additive 120, and thebinder 122.

The composite electrode 110 may then be used in preparing of a batterycell 145 (Block 146), which is shown in FIG. 11 and includes a compositecathode 147 and a composite anode 149, both of which may be prepared inaccordance with embodiments herein, separated by separator 151. Theseparator 151 may be prepared in accordance with embodiments describedherein (specifically, below) or may be a commercially-availableseparator 151.

Turning now to FIG. 10, a method 148 of fabricating a compositeelectrolyte suitable is described. At start, a solution is prepared(Block 150) and includes a binder, a “good solvent,” and a“non-solvent.” The binder may be any suitable, conducting polymer, suchas PVDF, PVDF-HFP, PTFE, PEO, PMMA, PAN, CMC, and SBR and amounts of thebinder may range from 20 wt % to 50 wt %.

Good solvents are those solvents that dissolve the binder well and byenergetically favorable interactions between the binder and the solventmolecules; non-solvents are those solvents that do not dissolve thebinder as well as the good solvents because of a preference of thebinder to self-interact in the presence of the non-solvent. According tosome embodiments of the present invention, non-solvents have a boilingpoint that is higher than a boiling point of the good solvent. In suchinstances, the non-solvent remains during a drying process, leading topore formation via a phase inversion (“PI”) process. Generally, anamount of the good solvent may range from 90 wt % to 95 wt % while anamount of the non-solvent may range from 0.1 wt % to 30 wt % or, morespecifically for some embodiments, from 5 wt % to 10 wt %.

Once the solution is mixed, a ceramic filler may, optionally, beintroduced (Block 152) and the suspension mixed (Block 154). The ceramicfiller may be any suitable inert particulate suitable for disruptingdendrite formation. Suitable ceramic fillers may include, for example,alumina (Al₂O₃), silica (SiO₂), titania (TiO₂), magnesia (MgO), lithia(Li₂O), lithium aluminate (LiAlO₂), barium titanate (BaTiO₃), lithiumaluminum germanium phosphate (“LAGP”), lithium aluminum titaniumphosphate (“LATP”), lithium lanthanum titanate (“LLTO”). An amount ofthe ceramic filler may range from 50 wt % to 80 wt %.

In Block 156, the suspension may be printed, such as in the mannerdescribed above with reference to FIG. 9, cast, such as in the mannerdescribed above with reference to FIG. 8, or otherwise applied to asubstrate, such as in the manner described above with reference to FIG.3. After application by the selected manner, the suspension is driedunder ambient conditions or assisted with heating, vacuum, or otherknown methods (Block 158). The composite electrode may then be used inpreparation of a battery cell (Block 160), such as with a compositeelectrode and slurry coated porous electrode as described above.Moreover, the electrolyte may be printed onto or cast over either of theelectrodes or commercial electrodes.

According to still other embodiments of the present invention, materialsfor the method of preparing an electrolyte according to FIG. 11 may beselected such that the electrolyte is suitable for use at hightemperatures, i.e., temperatures up to about 150° C. High temperaturecells may be formed using one or more flexible components prepared inaccordance with embodiments of the present invention or, alternatively,with one or more conventional components.

For high temperature applications, selection of materials comprising theelectrolyte, electrode, composite electrode, and so forth may be limitedas compared to the embodiments described above, including those at roomtemperature. For instance, a LiFePO₄//Li₄Ti₅O₁₂ full-cell prepared usinga CPE-PI electrolyte prepared according to embodiments described abovedoes not cycle at high temperature when lithiumbis(trifluoromethyl-sulfonyl)imide (“LiTFSI”) is used as the salt. Whilenot wishing to be bound by theory, it is believed that failure of thesefull-cells may be due to liquid electrolyte(trifluoromethylsulfonyl)imide, “TFSI,” intercalation into CNFscomprising the composite electrodes. Such intercalation may causeelectrolyte and Li⁺ consumption, which may render the full-cells unableto achieve a single full charge.

For instance, cells suitable for operating at temperatures ranging fromroom temperature up to about 120° C. may comprise electrolyte comprisinga thermally stable salt dissolved in a high boiling point liquid (i.e.,a liquid having a boiling point greater than 200° C.). Suitable saltsmay include LiTFSI or lithium bix(oxo-alato)borate (“LiBOB”). Theelectrolyte liquid may include, but is not limited to, high boilingpoint carbonates (such as EC, PC, or dibuty carbonate (“DBC”)), roomtemperature ionic liquids (“RTILs”), other high boiling point liquids(such as γ-butyrolactone (“GBL”) and tetraethylene glycol dimethyl ether(“TEGDME”)), or combinations thereof. Such electrolyte may facilitatethe formation of a stable solid electrolyte interphase (“SEI”) layer.The SEI is a passivating, solid layer typically formed on the surface ofthe anode (e.g., graphite or lithium metal) that is electricallyinsulating but facilitates ionic conduction. The SEI layer is necessaryto minimize irreversible liquid electrolyte degradation and capacityfade. Electrolyte additives, such as vinylene carbonate (“VC”) andethylene sulfite (“ES”) may aid in the formation of the SEI layer. Anamount of the electrolyte additives may range from 0.0 wt % to 10 wt %.

LiBOB in PC or EC provides thermal stability suitable for certainembodiments of the present invention. However, use of LiBOB and SEIforming materials may limit the selection of conductive additives assuch liquids may react with additives having high surface area carbon(such as carbon black or CNFs), a phenom-enon that may be accelerated atelevated temperatures. Therefore, lower surface area conductiveadditives, such as graphite, may be preferred.

Flexible or creasable batteries suitable for operating at temperaturesranging from room temperature up to about 120° C., according toembodiments of the present invention may be prepared by from a slurrycomprising a suitable conductive additives including low surface areacarbons (such as graphite) or metallic fillers (for example, Al, Cu, Ag,or Ni) with a suitable binder (PVDF, PVDF-HFP, PTFE, CMC, or SBR), andan active material (graphite, LiFePO₄, LiMn₂O₄, LiNiMnCoO₂, Li₄Ti₅O₁₂,silicon, or LiCoO₂) applied to a flexible substrate.

The flexible or creasable and high-temperature battery may furtherinclude a CPE-PI separator and a liquid electrolyte having 1 M LiBOB in1/1 EC/PC and 5% VC.

The flexible or creasable and high-temperature battery may furtherinclude an anode having an anode active material on a flexible substrateor a cathode having a cathode active material on a flexible substrate.

In some instances, formulations for components according to one or moreembodiments described herein may require alterations to render theformulations suitable for certain print techniques. For instance, slotdie coating techniques require fast dry times. As such, and by way ofexample, a fast drying electrolyte according to an embodiment of thepresent invention may include a combination of acetone and water as thesolvent and non-solvent, respectively. More particularly, PVDF-HFP couldbe dissolved in a 95/5 w/w solution of acetone and water. Oncedissolved, Al₂O₃ may be introduced and the solution sonicated. The lowboiling points of acetone and water facilitate faster drying times byallowing removal of solvent within minutes at room temperature.

Referring now to FIGS. 12-14, a flex durability tester 200 (hereafterreferred to as “tester”) according to an embodiment of the presentinvention is schematically illustrated. With particular reference toFIG. 12, the tester 200 comprises a platform 202 providing a surface 203thereof on which a battery 204 or a component of the battery may berolled. A mandrel 206 is positioned on the platform 202 such that themandrel 206 rolls linearly along the surface 203 of the platform 202.While not specifically illustrated herein, the mandrel 206 may furtherinclude a point of attachment in which the battery 204 or the componentthereof to be tested is operably coupled to the mandrel 206 for aduration of the test. In the particular, illustrative embodiment, themandrel 206 further comprises two coaxial struts 210, 212, extendingalong a lengthwise central axis 214 of the mandrel 206 and away fromopposing ends 216, 217 of the mandrel 206. Each strut 210, 212 providesa contact point by which a piston 218, 220 may be operably coupled tothe mandrel 206. Ends 222, 224 of the pistons 218, 220 distal to thestruts 210, 212 may be operably coupled to a motor (not shown) in amanner that is known to those of ordinary skill in the art. Altogetherthe pistons 218, 220 and motor are configured to roll (arrows 226, 228)the mandrel 206 along the surface 208 of the platform 202 between afirst position (illustrated in solid in FIGS. 12 and 13) and a secondposition (illustrated in phantom in FIGS. 12 and 13).

In use, and with reference now to FIGS. 12-14, the battery 204 (orparticular component of the battery under investigation), after beingsecured to the mandrel 206 (for example, by way of the point ofattachment), may be rolled and unrolled by advancing the mandrel 206over the surface 203 of the platform 202 between the first and secondpositions. Angular conditions may be chosen such that strain, ε,experienced by the battery or component may be adjusted by altering aradius, r, of the mandrel 206 and in accordance with Equation 1:

$\begin{matrix}{\varepsilon_{T} = {{- \varepsilon_{C}} = \frac{y}{r}}} & {{EQUATION}1}\end{matrix}$

In Equation 1 (schematically illustrated in FIG. 15), y is a distancefrom a surface of the battery 204 to its neutral plane. Therefore, thetensile, T, and compressive, C, strains are equal in magnitude butopposite in direction. Use of the tester 200 enables examination andtesting of the electrochemical performance and mechanical fatigue ofcells under specific amounts of strain ranging from 0% to 6%, or in someembodiments, up to 4.2% (in either tension or compression).

The following examples illustrate particular properties and advantagesof some of the embodiments of the present invention. Furthermore, theseare examples of reduction to practice of the present invention andconfirmation that the principles described in the present invention aretherefore valid but should not be construed as in any way limiting thescope of the invention.

EXAMPLE 1

MWNT CCs according to embodiments of the present invention were preparedfrom slurries comprising LiFePO₄ (cathode) or Li₄Ti₅O₁₂ (anode) as anactive material, graphite powder as a conductive additive, and PVDF as abinder in NMP solvent. Both LiFePO₄ and Li₄Ti₅O₁₂ slurries were applied,separately, to MWNT mats and conventional metal foils (Al and Cu) by adoctor blade method (Gardco Inc., Pompano Beach, Fla.) using a 6 milpath depth, and subsequently dried at 120° C. under vacuum for at least12 hr to yield an active coating. Samples (0.375 in diameter discs) werepunched from each of the MWNT CCs and the foil-based CCs. On average,the weights of Li₄Ti₅O₁₂ and LiFePO₄ in each disc ranged from 2.0 mg to2.5 mg for the foil-based and MWNT CCs, respectively, corresponding tocoating thicknesses ranging between 50 μm and 60 μm.

Wetting properties of these MWNT CCs and Li₄Ti₅O₁₂/MWNT electrodes werecompared to commercially-available and conventional copper foil CCs andLi₄Ti₅O₁₂/Cu electrodes. Commercially-available CC and electrodesincluded copper (EQ-bccf-25u) or aluminum (EQ-bcaf-15u-280) foil CC s(MTI Corp., Richmond, Calif.). Spinel Li₄Ti₅O₁₂ nanopowder, PVDF, andNMP were purchased from Sigma Aldrich Co. (St. Louis, Mo.). LiFePO₄ waspurchased through BASF SE (Ludwigshafen, Germany) (HED LFP-400), andgraphite was purchased from Asbury Graphite Mills (Ashbury, N.J.) (HPM850 powder). 1 M LiPF₆ in 1/1 EC/DEC by wt. was used as received fromNovolyte Technologies Inc. To evaluate electrolyte wetting, samples weretaped to a glass slide and 2.0 μL of liquid electrolyte (1 M LiPF₆ in1/1 EC/DEC by wt.) was applied to the center of each sample with amicropipetter.

Liquid electrolyte wetting was evaluated using electrodes prepared inthe manner described in Example 1 by depositing a 2 μL electrolyte (1 MLiPF₆ in 1/1 EC/DEC by wt.) drop on each cell. For CCs having the activecoating and for neat CCs (that is, the substrates), the drop quicklywicks through the MWNT mat and is visible on the bottom side of thesubstrate. On the electrodes having foil-based CCs, the electrolyte dropdid not wick through the substrate thickness.

The electrolyte droplet on the neat MWNT mat demonstrated asignificantly lower contact angle as compared to the contact angle ofthe electrolyte drop on the neat Cu foil. Such result indicates betterwettability in the MWNT mat.

FIGS. 16 and 17 are scanning electron microscopy (“SEM”) andtransmission electron microscopy (“TEM”) images, respectively, of theMWNT CCs. The images were acquired on an FEI Sirion XL-30 FEG-SEM (FEICo., Hillsboro, Oreg.) and a Cs-corrected (image corrector) FEI Titan(FEI Co.) operating at 300 kV. Free-standing layers of the MWNT CCsamples were sufficiently thin for TEM imaging to be prepared usingscotch tape exfoliation, illustrating the strength of the nanotubenetwork. The MWNT CCs had a high porosity (75%), which was observedusing TEM (porosity calculated from the bulk density of the film,measured to be 0.52 g/cm³, and assuming a value of 2.1 g/cm³ for theintrinsic density of the MWNT). The MWNT CCs had a high specific surfacearea, which was measured to be 176 m²/g.

FIGS. 18, 18A, 19, and 19A are cross-sectional SEM images of slurrycoated MWNT and the foil-based CC electrodes, respectively. FIGS. 18Aand 19A are enlargements of portions enclosed by boxes 18A and 19A ofFIGS. 18 and 19. Cross-sectional SEM samples were prepared throughcryo-fracturing by dipping each sample in liquid N₂ and immediatelycutting (with a razor blade), from the active coating side, through eachsample. Optical microscopy was performed using a Zeiss Stemi DV4 stereomicroscope (Carl Zeiss, AG, Oberkochen, Germany). Tensile test specimenswere prepared according to ASTM standard E345-93 (2013) using adouble-bladed cutter to form 50 mm×5 mm rectangular strips. Samplethicknesses were measured using a digital micrometer (Mitutoyo AmericaCorp., Aurora, Ill.). After cutting, samples were mounted on papersupports to ensure alignment of each sample and a 25.4 mm gauge length.

Mechanical testing was performed using an H10K-S UTM benchtop tester(Tinius Olsen, Horsham, Pa.) with a HTE-100 N load cell at an extensionrate of 0.5 mm/min. Surface area and porosity data of the MWNT CC werecalculated by the Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (“BET”) method based on N₂adsorption-desorption isotherms at 77 K obtained using an ASAP 2020surface area and porosimetry analyzer (Micromeritics Instrument Corp.,Norcross, Ga.). Each sample was degassed at 200° C. under vacuum for 12hr before acquiring measurements. Electrical conductivity was performedwith an SP4, four point probe head (Lucas Labs, Gilroy, Calif.)controlled with a 2410 SourceMeter (Keithley Instruments, Solon, Ohio)and a computer-operated LabVIEW program (National Instruments, Austin,Tex.).

Samples from MWNT CCs (FIGS. 18 and 18A) prepared in accordance withembodiments of the present invention exhibited superior interfacialadhesion between the MWNT mat and the active coating. The high porosityand better wetting capability of the MWNT CC is believed to yieldstronger binding between the active coating and the MWNT mat. Bycontrast, as shown in FIGS. 19 and 19A, the LiFePO₄ active coating onthe foil-based CCs included many gaps and portions of delamination.

Samples of the MWNT CCs were sufficiently porous such that electrolyte(1 M LiPF₆ in 1/1 EC/DEC by wt.) could access the active material fromboth sides the MWNT mat, which promotes homogenous wetting. Similarwetting is not possible with the foil-based CCs. Proper wetting is acritical factor for Li-ion batteries as insufficient or inhomogeneouselectrolyte wetting has been shown to accelerate cell degradation andshorten cell life.

The high porosity of the MWNT CCs yielded a much lower density ascompared to the foil-based CCs (0.52 g/cm³, 2.56 g/cm³, and 8.87 g/cm³for MWNT CCs, Al-based CCs, and Cu-based CCs, respectively). This, asillustrated in FIG. 20, leads to substantially improved total specificcapacity values for electrodes using MWNT mat substrates as compared tothe metal foil substrates. Specifically, 1.6-times and 4.8-timesimprovements were observed for LiFePO₄ and Li₄Ti₅O₁₂ electrodes,respectively, when accounting for the total mass (active material,conductive additive, binder, and CC).

EXAMPLE 2

Electrochemical performance of half-cells composed of either LiFePO₄ orLi₄Ti₅O₁₂ slurries on both MWNT mats and conventional metal foils (Aland Cu) were fabricated versus a lithium counter electrode. Electrodesamples were assembled into a 2325 coin cell configuration under argonenvironment (less than 1 ppm of each of H₂O and O₂). As illustrated inFIGS. 21 and 21A, an exemplary coin cell 230 configuration is shown(assembled and exploded views, respectively). Briefly, the coin cell 230includes an encasement 232 comprising a negative cap 234 and a positivebase 236. As specifically illustrated, although not required, at least aportion 238 of the negative cap 234 is surrounded by the positive base236 to form a cavity 240 therein. Within the cavity 240, from thepositive base 236 upwardly to the negative cap 234, the coin cell 230includes a cathode 242, a separator 244, an anode 246, and a spacer 248,all of which are positioned and maintained by a Belleville spring 250.

For half-cell experiments, each electrode sample (having either afoil-based CC or a MWNT CC) was assembled with lithium foil as counterand reference electrodes and a porous polymer membrane (CELGARD 2325,Celgard, LLC, Charlotte, N.C.) as the separator. The half-cells weresoaked in a liquid electrolyte solution of 1 M LiPF₆ in 1/1 w/w EC/DEC(Novolyte Technologies Inc., Independence, Ohio).

In FIG. 22, the cycling behavior of each half-cell at a constant C/5current rate was found to effectively be the same for both thefoil-based CCs and the MWNT CCs. Observed specific capacity values(based on active mass) were as expected for both LiFePO₄ and Li₄Ti₅O₁₂.Each half-cell was cycled up to 100-times with limited-to-no loss ofperformance, which suggests that the highly porous MWNT mat was actingas a CC by permitting access to all of the available active material ofthe active coating without directly participating in the electrochemicalreaction.

FIGS. 23 and 24 graphically illustrate results from rate studiesperformed on the same half-cells and reveal an equal or greaterperformance from the half-cells having MWNT CCs as compared tohalf-cells having foil-based CCs. In particular, performance at a highrate (for example, 5C) for LiFePO₄ on the MWNT CC shows a 14.7%improvement versus the Al-based CC counterpart. Such improvementsuggests better interfacial adhesion, as well as better electrolyteaccessibility to the active material within the active coating.

Half- and full-cells were assembled using both MWNT CCs and foil-basedCCs. Performance and energy density at a C/5 current rate were compared.All half- and full-cells comprising MWNT CCs exhibited extremely stablecharge/discharge profiles (FIG. 25), and the energy densities werecomparable to foil-based cells on an active mass basis. However, whenconsidering total electrode mass, full-cells having the MWNT CC rendereda 3.5× enhancement in energy density (FIG. 26) as compared to thefull-cell samples having the foil-based CC. Mass distributions of theprimary components are shown in Table 2, below, which highlights themass reduction of the MWNT CCs compared to commercially-available Li-ionbatteries. Metal foils contribute an average of 27% to the total weightof commercially-available batteries, which is reduced to 9.3% using MWNTCCs. Further weight reduction (to only 4.8%) may be accomplished bycoating active material to both sides of the MWNT mat, as is standardpractice in industry.

TABLE 2 Commercial Single-Sided Double-Sided Metal Foil Coating MWNTCoating MWNT Anode 31.0% 36.8% 38.6% Cathode 34.0% 40.9% 42.9% Separator 8.0% 13.0% 13.7% Aluminum  8.0% — — Copper 19.0% — — MWNT mat —  9.3% 4.8%

Electrochemical cycling was performed using a series 4000 battery testsystem (Maccor, Inc., Tulsa, Okla.). LiFePO₄ and Li₄Ti₅O₁₂ half-cellswere investigated for cycling stability through 100 cycles at a constantC/5 current rate between 2.0 V and 4.3 V versus Li/Li⁺ and 1.0 V and 2.1V versus Li/Li⁺, respectively. The rate studies were carried out in asimilar manner, with each half-cell tested for five cycles at thefollowing C-rates: C/5, C/2, 1C, 2C, 5C, and repeat of C/5. All C-rateswere calculated with 1C being defined as 170 mA/g and 175 mA/g forLiFePO₄ and Li₄Ti₅O₁₂, respectively.

Full-cell electrochemical cycling was carried out in a similar fashion,with LiFePO₄ and Li₄Ti₅O₁₂ used as cathode and anode, respectively.These cells were cycled at a constant C/5 current rate (calculated usingthe active mass of the limiting electrode, Li₄Ti₅O₁₂) between 1.2 V and2.4 V, with 1C being defined as 175 mA/g.

EXAMPLE 3

In situ durability analysis of full-cells (see Example 2) began withcutting battery components and encapsulating the components between twolayers of 75 μm thick Surlyn (GLTE/M, Europack, Inc., Wilmington, Del.).The electrode samples were cut to a size of 3×3 cm² with electrical leaddimensions of approximately 1×2 cm². The actual anode capacity/cathodecapacity ratio was adjusted to between 0.80 and 0.90 for theLi₄Ti₅O₁₂/LiFePO₄ full-cells. A CELGARD 2325 separator was cut to a sizeof 4×5 cm². Copper wires were placed in electrical contact with theleads of each electrode sample while a remainder of the copper wiresextended externally from the encapsulation layers. Optionally, somecopper wires were laminated between two sheets of 75 μm Surlyn using aGBC 9″ Personal Desktop Laminator (General Binding Corp., Lake Zurich,Ill.) to prevent electrolyte leakage. A perimeter of each cell wassealed using a ZIPLOCK V151 vacuum sealer system (S.C. Johnson & Son,Inc., Racine, Wis.). Sealing was performed between two non-porous TEFLONsheets (E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co.) to prevent sticking to theheating element. Using a needle, 0.8 mL of liquid electrolyte (1 M LiPF₆in 1/1 EC/DEC by wt.) was added to each cell while in an argon glovebox.The excess region of the cell was sealed off using the method describedabove.

Contact between all layers was improved by carefully kneading the fullyconstructed cell to ensure electrolyte uptake and to remove any bubbles.

Testing was accomplished using a flex tester according to embodiments ofthe present invention, as exemplified in FIGS. 12-14. During the courseof the testing, the mandrel was rolled at a linear velocity of 10 mm/secduring a discharge at C/5 for cells having MWNT CCs and foil based CCs.FIG. 27 graphically represents such measured discharge voltage, wherecenter traces show 600 roll/unroll cycles and 430 roll/unroll cycles forthe MWNT- and foil-based CCs cells (the mandrel was exchanged every 20min during a single discharge), respectively.

Bending conditions were chosen such that ε ranged from 2.1% (r=7.88 mm)to 2.6% (r=6.35 mm) or to 4.2% (r=4.00 mm). Given that the totalthickness of each cell was about 335 μm, shifting of the neutral axiscould be neglected, and its location was taken to be the middle layer ofthe cell (i.e., the separator). A pure-bending set-up and linear strainfield were assumed for calculations. Cells with dimensions ofapproximately 12 cm×8 cm were rolled a linear distance of 3 cm at alinear velocity of 10 mm/sec using Motion Planner v. 4.3.2 software(Parker Hannifin, Corp., Rohnert Park, Calif.). Each complete cycle(roll/unroll) took 6 sec for completion.

The electrochemical properties were galvanostatically tested in eachcell with potential ranging from 1.2 V to 2.4 V. Each cell was chargedin an argon environment to 2.4 V at a C/3 current rate. The bend testwas then performed under ambient conditions while each cell wasdischarged at a C/5 current rate (calculated using the active mass ofLi₄Ti₅O₁₂). Every 20 min, the mandrel was replaced with one having asmaller radius.

For better comparison, representative 1.5 min increments from eachcomplete cycle were selected to highlight the amplitude of voltage noiseon cells having MWNT CCs or foil-based CCs (illustrated inserts providedin FIG. 27). The cells having foil-based CCs demonstrated cyclicalvoltage fluctuations at 2.1% strain with a frequency correspondingdirectly to the periodicity of mechanical disruption. As strainincreased, larger and more random voltage fluctuations were observeduntil the cell having foil-based CCs shorted (at 30 roll/unroll cyclesat 4.2% strain), illustrated with an “X” in FIG. 27. Battery failure wasattributed to interlayer separation and in-plane shifting. By contrast,the cells having MWNT-based CCs exhibited stable dischargecharacteristics as strain was increased. Even at 4.2% strain, onlyminor, cyclical fluctuations (less than about 0.005 V) were observed,and failure did not occur. Improved stability may be attributed to theincreased flexibility of the MWNT mat, allowing the cell to readilyconform to the mandrel as rolling proceeded. The flexibility may havealso resisted layer-to-layer separation, giving rise to superiorelectromechanical stability.

An ideal flexible power source should experience minimal voltage noiseduring continuous deformation in order to maintain a steady supplyvoltage, a point which is especially significant for reliablemicrosystem performance. To evaluate such voltage noise, straingraphically illustrated in FIG. 27 was analyzed using root mean squareerror (“RMSE”). Resultant data are presented in Table 3, below. Anincrease of 0.5% in strain (from 2.1% to 2.6%) of the cell havingfoil-based CCs exhibited a 4.4-times increase in voltage noise. Themechanical instability of the cell having foil-based CCs translated intoa nearly two order of magnitude increase (10⁻⁴ V to 10⁻² V) in voltagenoise when bending strain was increased from 0% to 4.2%. A 14-foldincrease in voltage noise was observed when using the cells havingfoil-based CCs as compared to the cells having MWNT-based CCs.

TABLE 3 r (mm) RMSE_(MWNT) (V) RMSE_(Foil) (V)$\frac{{RMSE}_{Foil}}{{RMSE}_{MWNT}}$ ∞ 2.51E−04 2.00E−04  0.80 7.884.88E−04 1.26E−03  2.58 6.35 5.09E−04 5.55E−03 10.90 4.00 8.40E−041.18E−02 14.05

EXAMPLE 4

Stability of cells prepared in the manner described in Example 3 wasevaluated by repeatedly folding and creasing each cell along a selectedfold line. The fold line was selected to correspond to an extreme amountof mechanical stress and strain at the crease, which is illustrated inFIG. 28. Each cell was sequentially folded about the same line, every 20sec, to mimic a scenario of severe mechanical deformation.

FIG. 29 illustrates the discharge voltage of the full-cells havingMWNT-based CCs during a ±180° fold. Performance of the cells havingMWNT-based CCs was uncompromised for all 288 180° folds. Two regionsused for measuring voltage (indicated as 29A and 29B in FIG. 29) areenlarged to show that voltage is unchanged from the beginning to the endof the test. The cells having MWNT-based CCs yielded a remarkableability to accommodate strains of repeated folding while maintainingexcellent adhesion between both the active material/CC and interlayerinterfaces.

FIGS. 30 and 31 are photographs of LiFePO₄/MWNT and Li₄Ti₅O₁₂/MWNTelectrodes, respectively, after the folding test. These photographsdemonstrate little-to-no creasing or folding damage to the CCs.

By contrast, FIG. 32 illustrates the discharge voltage of thosefull-cells having foil-based CCs through the same ±180° folding test.Severe and increasing voltage instability occurred as the number offolds increased. Such instability is believed to be due to accumulateddamage caused by the mechanical deformation of the cells havingfoil-based CCs.

FIGS. 33 and 34 are photographs of the LiFePO₄/Al and Li₄Ti₅O₁₂/Cuelectrodes, respectively. While the Cu-based electrode (FIG. 34) showedexpansive buckling emanating from the fold region, the Al-basedelectrode (FIG. 33) catastrophically fractured after only 94 folds(indicated with an arrow in FIG. 32), which caused the magnitude ofvoltage spikes to severely increase. Ultimately the foil-based full-cellhad complete performance failure after 186 folds.

Failure of the cells having foil-based CCs resulted from either severebuckling or fracturing along the fold line due to permanent plasticdeformation, fatigue, and catastrophic failure of the metal foil duringtesting. Although failure from tearing is easy to conceptualize,buckling is also highly detrimental to performance as it decreasescompliancy, exacerbates interlayer separation, and leads to severevoltage spikes and capacity degradation. On the other hand, the cellshaving MWNT CCs (FIGS. 30 and 31) remained intact after the fold test,exhibiting little sign of permanent deformation, crease memory, oractive material delamination.

EXAMPLE 5

The stability of cells prepared in the manner described in Example 3 wasevaluated by repeatedly folding each cell along two, perpendicular axes.As shown in FIG. 35, a first fold (a1) was positioned along alongitudinal axis while a second fold (a2) was positioned along atransverse axis. The cells were creased along each fold line.Positioning of the folds was selected to correspond to an extreme amountof mechanical stress and strain at the crease.

The discharge voltage of the cells having MWNT CCs (graphicallyillustrated in FIG. 36) remained nearly unaffected throughout the foldcycles, whereas the cells having foil-based CCs (graphically illustratedin FIG. 37) experienced appreciable voltage fluctuations during the samemechanical deformation. After several fold cycles, macroscopic,irreversible buckling was observed along both axes in the cells havingfoil-based CCs. Little-to-no folding-induced damage or crease memory wasobserved in the cells having MWNT CCs. Regions 36A, 36B, 37A, and 37B ofFIGS. 36 and 37, respectively, corresponding to times of active folding,are enlarged to demonstrate differences in performance.

Resultantly, cells having MWNT CCs provide particular advantage inorigami-based applications.

EXAMPLE 6

A MWNT CC having pristine LiFePO₄ active coatings (hereafter,LiFePO₄/MWNT) was subjected to 50 cycles of the ±180° folding, which isillustrated in FIG. 38. An Al-based CC having a LiFePO₄ active coatingwas subjected to only three folding iterations, which are illustrated inFIG. 39. A macroscale folding line was observed in both CCs; however,the folding line is much more pronounced in the Al-based CC (FIG. 39).Cracking of the Al foil substrate began only after two cycles of ±180°folding. The MWNT CC (FIG. 38), on the other hand, showed only slightcracking in the active coating while the LiFePO₄/MWNT remained intact(likely due to interconnected network of long MWNTs).

FIGS. 38A and 39A are magnified images of the folding line of the MWNTand Al-based electrodes, respectively.

To complement the macroscopic observations, both the MWNT and Al-basedelectrodes were cryo-fractured in a direction perpendicular to thefolding line for cross-sectional SEM examination. Resulting images areshown in FIGS. 38B and 39B. The creased region of the MWNT-basedelectrode (FIG. 38B) did not appear to be significantly affected byfolding, likely due to the interfacial adhesion between the MWNTs andthe active coating. The Al-based electrode (FIG. 39B), on the otherhand, demonstrated visible signs of delamination and cracking.Therefore, the observed, folding-induced voltage fluctuations in thecell having foil-based electrodes had likely arisen from a combinationof active coating detachment, CC damage, and layer separation.

EXAMPLE 7

The mechanical behavior of CCs was assessed by uni-axial tensiletesting. Results of the testing are graphically illustrated in FIG. 40.The MWNT CCs exhibited a maximum strain at failure of 28%, which farexceeded the maximum strain of the Al-based CCs (2%) and the Cu-basedCCs (9%). The ultimate tensile strength of the MWNT mat was 118 MPa ascompared to 153 MPa and 133 MPa for Al foil and Cu foil, respectively.

The MWNT mat, therefore, should have sufficient tensile strength to actas a mechanical support for battery electrodes. The increase in maximumstrain should yield improved performance under flex, bend, or creasetesting. FIGS. 41 and 42 illustrate that the addition of the activecoating did not significantly alter the force-displacement behavior ofthe MWNT mat.

EXAMPLE 8

Composite electrodes according to various embodiments of the presentinvention were prepared with Li₄Ti₅O₁₂, LiFePO₄, and LiCoO₂ activematerial powders purchased from the MTI Corp. CNFs (PYROGRAF-IIIPR-19-HT) were supplied by Applied Sciences Inc. (Cedarville, Ohio).Graphite was purchased through Asbury Graphite Mills (HPM 850 powder)and Super P-Li carbon black was from TIMCAL Graphite & Carbon. KYNAR HSV900 PVDF was provided from Arkema Inc. (King of Prussia, Pa.). NMP waspurchased through Sigma Aldrich Co. Ratios of these materials forvarious samples are provided in Table 4, below.

For composite electrodes having an active material, a conductiveadditive, and a binder, each batch included 100 mg of the selectedactive material and 5 mL solvent (conductive additive and binder werescaled according to the ratios in Table 4). The procedure for eachcomposite electrode included first dissolving the binder in NMP. Next,CNFs were added and probe sonicated for 1 min at 17% amplitude using aSonics Vibra-Cell VCX 750 Probe Sonicator (Sonics and Materials, Inc.,Newton, Conn.) with a 0.25 in microtip. The active material was thenadded, and the mixture was bath sonicated for 10 min using a 2510 bathsonicator (Branson Ultrasonics Inc., Danbury, Conn.). The suspensionswere shaken by hand several times during the sonication period for morethorough mixing. Finally, the suspension was transferred to a 6 cmdiameter PTFE dish and dried at 90° C. Once the solvent had evaporated,the suspensions were dried under vacuum at 120° C. overnight to yieldcomposite electrodes.

Samples (9.5 mm diameter discs) were punched from the compositeelectrodes with typical weights of Li₄Ti₅O₁₂, LiFePO₄, and LiCoO₂comprising each sample ranging from 1.5 mg to 3.0 mg. These weightscorresponded to sample thicknesses ranging between 100 μm and 200 μm, asmeasured by a digital micrometer (Mitutoyo America Corp.). Half-cellswere assembled versus lithium foil under argon environment (less than 1ppm H₂O and O₂) as a full-cell having the 2325 coin cell configurationillustrated in FIG. 21. A porous polymer membrane (CELGARD 2325) soakedin a liquid electrolyte solution of 1 M LiPF₆ in 1/1 w/w EC/DEC(Novolyte Technologies) was used as the separator. After fabrication,the coin cells were allowed to age at least 8 hr before electrochemicalcycling to allow for homogeneous electrolyte wetting.

EXAMPLE 9

The electrochemical performances of composite electrode compositionsselected from Table 4 were studied and evaluated. For example,electrochemical performance of four electrodes comprisingLi₄Ti₅O₁₂/CNF/PVDF (Sample Nos. A, B, D, and F) are graphicallyillustrated in FIG. 43, where square data points correspond to SampleNo. A, triangular data points correspond to Sample No. D, circular datapoints correspond to Sample No. B, and star-shaped data pointscorrespond to Sample No. F. All electrodes exhibited reasonably lowC-rate (C/5) performances (greater than or equal to 129 mAh/g) based onLi₄Ti₅O₁₂ active mass; however, a sharp drop off in high C-rate (2C and5C) performance with increased polymer loading was noted. Namely,electrodes including Sample Nos. A and D (50 wt % and 40 wt % polymer,respectively) showed decaying cycle performance at high C-rate whencompared to samples composed of 20 wt % polymer or less (e.g., SampleNos. B and F).

TABLE 4 C/5 5C Sample ρ σ^(b)) TS^(c)) Capacity Capacity No. CompositionRatio^(a)) [g/cm³] [S/cm] [MPa] [mAh/g] [mAh/g] A Li₄Ti₅O₁₂/ 25/25/500.97 10.50 12.7 141 8 CNF/PVDF B Li₄Ti₅O₁₂/ 40/40/20 0.61 10.13 2.5 15089 CNF/PVDF C Li₄Ti₅O₁₂/ 40/30/30 0.75 8.32 2.5 130 77 CNF/PVDF DLi₄Ti₅O₁₂/ 40/20/40 0.80 7.17 5.8 139 37 CNF/PVDF E Li₄Ti₅O₁₂/ 50/25/250.76 6.25 2.2 125 73 CNF/PVDF F Li₄Ti₅O₁₂/ 67/17/17 0.88 3.82 1.1 129 73CNF/PVDF G Li₄Ti₅O₁₂/ 40/40/20 1.01 1.34 4.3 123 1 Graphite/PVDF HLi₄Ti₅O₁₂/ 40/40/20 0.82 Brittle^(e)) Brittle^(e)) 170 64 CB^(d))/PVDF ILiCoO₂/ 40/40/20 0.73 10.43 2.1 137 80 CNF/PVDF J LiFePO₄/ 40/40/20 0.6610.68 2.2 156 106 CNF/PVDF K CNF/PVDF 50/50 0.94 12.40 14.8 115 — LCNF/PVDF 67/33 0.55 14.28 4.7 250 — Where ^(a))sample ratios were by wt%, ^(b))four-point probe electrical conductivity, ^(c))tensile strengthat failure, ^(d))carbon black, and ^(e))the sample was too brittle tomeasure electrical conductivity or mechanical properties.

All electrochemical cycling was performed using a Maccor series 4000battery test system (Maccor, Inc.). LiFePO₄, LiCoO₂, Li₄Ti₅O₁₂, and CNFswere investigated for cycling stability at a constant C/5 current ratebetween 2.0 V and 4.3 V, between 3.0 V and 4.2 V, between 1.0 V and 2.1V, and between 0.01 V vs. 3.0 V Li/Li⁺, respectively. Rate studies werecarried out in a similar manner, with each half-cell tested for fivecycles at C/5, C/2, 1C, 2C, 5C, and C/5 for all active materials. AllC-rates were calculated with 1C being defined as 170 mA/g, 155 mA/g, 175mA/g, and 372 mA/g for LiFePO₄, LiCoO₂, Li₄Ti₅O₁₂, and CNFs,respectively.

FIG. 44 graphically illustrates the effect of binder loading oncharge/discharge profiles. While composite electrodes comprising SampleNo. A (top portion of FIG. 44) achieved an expected capacity of 141mAh/g at C/5, the high binder content had a detrimental effect on highC-rate performance (i.e., 9 mAh/g at 5C). Additionally, thecharge/discharge plateaus were not flat at any of the tested currentrates for composite electrodes comprising Sample No. A, indicatingsignificant ohmic loss and poor reaction kinetics with increasingcurrent rate. Composite electrodes comprising Sample No. B (bottomportion of FIG. 44), on the other hand, displayed stable and flatcharge/discharge plateaus with excellent capacities of 150 mAh/g and 89mAh/g at C/5 and 5C, respectively.

Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy (“EIS”) was used to investigatelosses affecting electrode performance and were conducted in athree-electrode split cell (MTI Corp.) with Li foil as the counter andreference electrodes. An area of the working electrodes (i.e., Li₄Ti₅O₁₂composites) was 1.6 cm². The liquid electrolyte was the same as theliquid electrolyte used in the cycling experiments.

Measurements were performed with a Gamry Reference 600Potentiosat/Galvanostat/ZRA (Gamry Instruments, Philadelphia, Pa.) atopen circuit potential by applying an AC amplitude of 10 mV over afrequency ranging from 50 mHz to 300 kHz at room temperature. Prior toperforming the EIS measurements, the electrodes were subjected to onedischarge/charge cycle at C/5 between 1.0 V and 2.1 V to activate theelectrode/electrolyte interface, followed by a discharge cycle to 50%depth-of-discharge. The samples were then allowed to equilibrate for 2hr before the EIS measurements were acquired to minimize the drift inopen circuit voltage. A stable open circuit voltage was typicallyattained at 1.58 V.

Curve fitting of Nyquist plots was used for quantitative analysis of thevariation in impedance between the composites. An equivalent circuitdiagram illustrating the investigative process is shown in FIG. 47, andthe data is provided, below, in Table 5.

FIG. 45 graphically represents Nyquist plots for Li₄Ti₅O₁₂ compositeelectrodes comprising Sample Nos. A, B, D, and F. Square data pointscorrespond to Sample No. A, triangular data points correspond to SampleNo. D, circular data points correspond to Sample No. B, star-shaped datapoints correspond to Sample No. F, and the solid line corresponds to thesimulation results. Simulations were carried out using eChem Analystsoftware (Gamry Instruments), wherein equivalent circuits were designedin the software and a simplex method was applied to fit the parameters.The curves for Samples A and B show several characteristic features,beginning with a high frequency intercept (Rs), located near the originbecause the solution resistance between the working and referenceelectrodes is compensated by the three-electrode set-up. Three depressedsemicircles were observed throughout the frequency regime for eachcomposite. A first semicircle (R_(h)) at 15 kHz represents a Schottkybarrier at the CNF/active material interface; a second semicircle(R_(m)) at 252 Hz represents the contact impedance between the stainlesssteel testing platform and the composite electrode. A three-foldincrease in areal resistance was observed in coin cells having compositeelectrodes comprising Sample No. A over Sample No. B for both R_(h)(3.06 Ωcm² vs. 0.99 Ωcm²) and R_(m) (16.67 Ωcm² vs. 5.18 Ωcm²), whichindicated sluggish electron transfer reactions at the surface of theelectrode and poor electronic conductivity during Li+insertion,respectively.

Impedance spectra were fitted to the circuit illustrated in FIG. 47,where the true capacitance was replaced with a constant phase element(“CPE”) to better represent a non-homogenous nature of the porouscomposite samples. Furthermore, the CPE has replaced the common Warburgelement in the above model to more accurately represent the finitediffusion process.

The increased impedance values in composite electrodes comprising SampleNo. A vs. Sample No. B were consistent with the electrochemical data inFIG. 45.

Referring still to FIG. 45, a third semicircle (R_(l)) at 12 Hzrepresents the charge transfer process as Li⁺ migrates into the activematerial through the rock-salt shell and ultimately into the spinel corestructure. Because this reflects an intrinsic property of Li₄Ti₅O₁₂,this response was held constant (about 18 Ωcm²) for all samplecompositions provided in Table 4.

TABLE 5 Sample No. A B D F Li₄Ti₅O₁₂/CNF/PVDF Representation 25/25/5040/40/20 40/20/40 67/17/17 Ratio R_(s) (Ωcm²) Ohmic resistance of  0.41± 0.01  0.63 ± 0.02  0.45 ± 0.02  0.24 ± 0.01 liquid electrolyte R_(h)(Ωcm²) Schottky barrier  3.06 ± 0.43  0.99 ± 0.15  2.41 ± 0.37  2.10 ±0.26 resistance R_(m) (Ωcm²) Contact resistance 16.67 ± 1.06  5.18 ±0.58  9.14 ± 1.20  7.84 ± 0.87 R_(l) (Ωcm²) Transfer across the 18.72 ±2.79 17.99 ± 2.96 17.79 ± 2.53 18.28 ± 2.66 phase boundary

The combination of a semicircle and straight line in the lowestfrequency region represents the phase transformation from Li₄Ti₅O₁₂(spinel) into Li₄Ti₅O₁₂ (rock-salt) and solid-phase diffusion of Li⁺within a bulk of the composite electrode material, respectively.Overall, the impedance curves of the coin cell having a compositeelectrode comprising Sample No. B suggest comparable or improvedelectronic properties relative to similar works performed with Li₄Ti₅O₁₂coatings on Cu foil, which would suggest that embedded CNFs aresufficient to replace conventional metal foil CCs.

One of the biggest factors dictating electrochemical performance of thecomposite electrodes prepared in accordance with embodiments of thepresent invention is binder loading, which does not have a significantimpact on the electrical conductivity of the composites. All of theLi₄Ti₅O₁₂/CNF/PVDF composite electrodes of Table 4 possessed acceptableelectrical conductivities (ranging between 3 S/cm and 10 S/cm), sincethe CNF loading is well above the percolation threshold (which is knownto be less than about 1 wt % when using CNFs embedded in a polymermatrix).

The range of conductivity is sufficient for lithium ion batterieswithout a dedicated metal foil CC. Therefore, the binder may beaffecting an intrinsic composite property, such as lithium diffusivity.Lithium ion diffusivity (D_(Li+)) was calculated by the EIS method usingWarburg impedance and according to Equation 2 and Table 6, below:

$\begin{matrix}{D_{{Li} +} = \frac{R^{2}T^{2}}{2A^{2}n^{4}F^{4}C^{2}\sigma^{2}}} & {{EQUATION}2}\end{matrix}$

where R is the gas constant, T is the absolute temperature, A is thearea of the composite electrode, n is the number of electronstransferred, F is the Faraday constant, C is the molar concentration oflithium, and σ is the Warburg coefficient.

Based on the evaluation of these parameters, illustrated in FIG. 46, theobserved trend in the values of D_(Li+) was consistent with respectiverate performances in FIG. 43. It is likely that in composite electrodeshaving a high PVDF loading, the network of interconnected spaces betweenparticles was occupied by binder rather than electrolyte. As a result,many of the lithium ion diffusion pathways were blocked, yielding lowD_(Li+) values (see Table 6) for composite electrodes comprising SampleNos. A and D. On the other hand, the more porous nature of compositeelectrodes comprising Sample Nos. B and F promoted higher D_(Li+)values.

TABLE 6 σ D_(Li+) Sample (Ω s^(−1/2)) (cm²/s) A (25/25/50) 8.95 1.5 ×10⁻¹³ D (40/20/40) 7.65 2.0 × 10⁻¹³ B (40/40/20) 2.93 1.4 × 10⁻¹² F(67/17/17) 3.35 1.1 × 10⁻¹²

Because polymer loading correlated with degraded performance, capacityas a function of polymer density throughout the composite for both lowand high C-rates was evaluated. FIG. 48 illustrates the specificcapacity of the coin cells having a composite electrode comprisingLi₄Ti₅O₁₂ and PVDF densities. The observed trends at low C (C/5) andhigh C (5C) rates are believed to be due to bulk diffusion within eachcomposite electrode. That is, at a low C-rate, where there is more timefor Li⁺ diffusion, PVDF density had little-to-no effect on performanceand reasonable Li₄Ti₅O₁₂-specific capacities (of at least 125 mAh/g)were achieved. Conversely, at a high C-rate, where there is less timefor Li⁺ diffusion, there was a strong correlation (R=−0.97) betweendecreased electrochemical performance and increased binder density.Thus, in composites where PVDF loading is high, the network ofinterconnected spaces between particles becomes filled with binderrather than electrolyte and many of Li⁺ diffusion pathways are blocked,which gives rise to the poor high C-rate (5C) performance.

FIG. 49 is a graphical representation of N₂ adsorption and desorptionisotherms of composite electrodes comprising Sample No. A (square datapoints), Sample No. B (circular data points), and pure CNFs (triangulardata points). Generally, the Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (“BET”) surface areadecreased from 40 m²/g for pure CNFs to 14 m²/g and 4 m²/g in compositeelectrodes comprising Sample No. B and Sample No. A, respectively. Suchchange in surface area supports a conclusion that increased polymerloading fills in many of the potential pores, thereby decreasingelectrolyte and Li⁺ diffusion pathways.

EXAMPLE 10

Mechanical properties of the composite electrodes of Example 8 were alsoinvestigated. SEM imaging was performed using an FEI Sirion XL-30FEG-SEM (FEI, Co.). Samples for cross-sectional SEM were preparedthrough cryo-fracturing in liquid N₂. All tensile tests were conductedon a DMA Q800 Dynamic Mechanical Analyzer (TA Instruments, New Castle,Del.) in displacement control mode with a constant strain rate of 1%/minat room temperature. The composite electrodes were cut into rectangulartensile specimens of 20 mm length and 3 mm width using a razor. Thefinished tensile specimens were examined using a Zeiss Stemi DV4 opticalmicroscope (Carl Zeiss, AG) to ensure that there were no visible flawsfrom cutting. The thickness of each tensile specimen was determined fromthe average of three measurements taken along the gauge length with aMitutoyo micrometer (Mitutoyo America Corp.). The surface area andporosity data of the MWNT mat were calculated by BET method based on N₂adsorption-desorption isotherms at 77 K obtained using an ASAP 2020surface area and porosimetry analyzer (Micromeritics Instrument Corp.).The sample was degassed at 100° C. under vacuum for 16 hr before runningthe measurement. Electrical conductivity was performed with a Lucas LabsSP4 four-point probe head controlled with a Keithley 2410 SourceMeter(Keithley Instruments) and a computer operated LabVIEW program (NationalInstruments).

FIG. 50 is a graphical representation of the comparison of stress-straincurves for tensile strength of samples comprising Sample Nos. A, B, D,and F. From these curves, and the analysis of mean mechanical properties(illustrated in FIGS. 51 and 52 for tensile strength and strain tofailure, respectively), a positive correlation between both tensilestrength and strain-to-failure with increased binder loading wasobserved. Sample No. B, which exhibited excellent electrochemicalperformance, possessed moderate mechanical properties (tensile strengthand strain-to-failure of 2.5 MPa and 1.8%, respectively). Suchproperties are improved, or at least comparable to, as compared to othercurrent state-of-the-art free-standing composites. For example, thetensile strength of composite electrodes prepared in accordance withthese embodiments could be improved up to 12.7 MPa at 50 wt % PVDF. Suchan enhancement in mechanical properties could be utilized forapplications where a slow charge or discharge is acceptable.

EXAMPLE 11

To understand the observed improved mechanical strength andelectrochemical performance of electrodes prepared in Example 8, SEMimages were acquired to characterize composite electrodes comprisingSample Nos. A and B. Resultant images are shown in FIGS. 53 and 54, withportions enclosed 53A and 54A being enlarged.

The composition of Sample No. A (FIGS. 53 and 53A), having 50% binder,has a limited number of visible pores. The high binder content andlimited pore structure may contribute to the observed, excellentmechanical properties, which come at the cost of a high C-rate (2C and5C) performance. Such a difference may also be due to the lack ofdiffusion pathways. Conversely, the composition of Sample No. B (FIGS.54 and 54A), having only 20% binder, has many pores as compared to FIGS.53 and 53A. The high porosity of the composite electrodes comprisingSample No. B may give rise to the observed superior electrochemicalperformance. Although, not surprisingly, some mechanical properties weresacrificed. Yet, the electrochemical and mechanical properties ofcomposite electrodes comprising Sample No. B provided the best trade-offbetween mechanical integrity and electrochemical performance.

The 40% loading of active material composite electrodes comprisingeither Sample No. A or Sample No. B is comparable tocommercially-available Li-ion battery electrodes, which typicallyconsist of about 30% to 35% active material when considering conductiveadditive, binder, and metal foil CC.

Electrodes having other, more common conductive additives for Li-ionbatteries, such as graphite or carbon black, were also fabricated at theoptimum loading found for the Li₄Ti₅O₁₂/CNF/PVDF (Samples Nos. G and H).However, both electrodes comprising Sample Nos. G and H presentedundesirable issues during casting, such as inhomogeneous settling in thecase of graphite or cracking and curling in the case of carbon black.

EXAMPLE 12

To examine versatility of methods of preparation, composite electrodeswere prepared in accordance with the method described in Example 8,using LiFePO₄ (Sample No. J) and LiCoO₂ (Sample No. I), with optimizedratios determined using Li₄Ti₅O₁₂. Electrical and mechanicalcharacterizations were performed in a manner similar to those describedin Examples 8-10.

FIG. 55 graphically represents the rate performances (C/5) of resultingcomposite electrodes comprising Sample Nos. I (square data points) and J(triangular data points), as compared to Sample No. B (circular datapoints). At low current rates, each of the three types of activematerials displayed excellent capacities of 150 mAh/g (Li₄Ti₅O₁₂), 156mAh/g (LiFePO₄), and 137 mAh/g (LiCoO₂). Even at a high, 5C currentrate, each sample exhibited a capacity of at least 80 mAh/g, with thecomposite electrode comprising Sample No. J performing the best at 106mAh/g.

The composite electrodes were tested for 100 cycles at a C/5 currentrate, as shown in FIG. 56, which led to consistent performance as wellas extremely stable charge/discharge profiles, as shown in FIG. 57.

Composites were prepared using only CNF and PVDF, according to themethod described in Example 8 using a 50/50 ratio of CNF to PVDF (SampleNo. K) and a 67/33 of CNF to PVDF (Sample No. L).

While the composite electrodes comprising Sample Nos. K and L showedexcellent C/5 cyclability over 50 cycles, the composite electrode withSample No. K (with 50% CNFs) achieved a reversible capacity of only 115mAh/g, whereas the composite electrode with Sample No. L (with 67% CNFs)showed a 250 mAh/g CNF-specific capacity (FIG. 58). Such decrease inelectrochemical performance may be attributed to increased binderloading, which fills the voids within the composite electrode, blockspotential diffusion pathways, and leads to a nearly three-foldenhancement in tensile strength. Representative charge and dischargeprofiles of Sample Nos. K and L are shown in FIG. 59.

Using the testing methods described above, composite electrodescomprising Sample Nos. K and L were formed as free-standing, flexiblefilms; however, the electrochemical performance and mechanical strengthboth suffered. At higher electrochemical windows, the CNFs only act as aconductive additive and do not participate electrochemically within theelectrodes. Only minimal CNF contributions (0.6 mAh/g to 1.7 mAh/g) wereobserved (FIG. 60), which corresponds to about 1% or less of the totalactive material specific capacity.

EXAMPLE 13

In reviewing the composite electrodes from Example 8, those comprisingSample No. B were found to retain a casting shape without shrinkage,which is a desirable trait for a printable ink. By comparison, thosecomprising Sample No. A led to significant shrinkage and out-of-planebuckling around the edges during the casting process. Any shrinkage orout-of-plane deformation would severely complicate printing,particularly for building up sequential layers in the z-direction. The40/40/20 ratio of active/CNF/PVDF provides a good balance betweenelectrochemical performance, mechanical strength, and shape retentionwhile drying.

In that regard, composite inks configured for printing according toembodiments of the present invention were prepared using the proceduredescribed above in Example 8, except solid loading of each compositionwas doubled to increase viscosity. For anodes consisting of only CNFs,150 mg of CNFs were added to a 6 mL polymer/NMP solution (the amount ofbinder was scaled according to the ratios in Table 4). The anode mixturewas probe sonicated for 2 min at 22% amplitude, transferred to a 6 cmPTFE dish, dried at 90° C. to remove solvent, then vacuumed at 120° C.overnight.

Printing was performed by extrusion from a syringe mounted on a customAerotech 3D-motion gantry (Pittsburgh, Pa.). Typical motion speedsranged from 5 mm/s to 20 mm/s. Extrusion was controlled using an UltimusV pressure pump system from Nordson EFD (East Providence, R.I.) atpressures ranging from 0.5 psi to 5 psi. The syringe tips, also fromNordson EFD, ranged from 18 gauge to 25 gauge, of 0.25 in stainlesssteel. Needle geometry, pressure, and print speed were tuned to minimizefeature size and maximize print reliability (reliable extrusion andwetting of ink). Tool paths were developed in AeroBasic scriptinglanguage.

A printed Li₄Ti₅O₁₂disc (not shown) of the prepared anode composite inkwas electrochemically cycled in the half-cell configuration. The printedanode's rate performance was on par with the performance of the castedcomposite electrodes comprising Sample No. B (graphically illustrated inFIG. 61).

To emphasize the versatility of the composite electrodes, a compositecathode ink comprising LiFePO₄ ink and having ratios similar to thecomposite electrode was prepared and used to print several complexpatterns onto a substrate (here, transparency paper). Two of suchpatterns are shown in FIGS. 62 and 63. The patterns were easily flexedor deformed while on the substrate without any visible cracking ordelamination. As such, the cathode composite ink was shown to printlayered structures into highly flexible or stretchable patterns (e.g.,serpentine, crossed, and interdigitated).

EXAMPLE 14

A dry phase inversion ink for printing porous electrolytes for use in Liion batteries according to embodiments of the present invention wasprepared with KYNARHSV 900 PVDF from Arkema Inc.; 40-50 nm APS powderAl₂O₃ from NanoDur purchased through Alfa Aesar (Ward Hill, Mass.); andNMP and glycerol purchased from Sigma Aldrich Co.

Nanocomposite electrolytes were prepared by dissolving 0.1726 g PVDF in3 mL NMP (or NMP/glycerol 95/5 w/w for electrolytes made with the phaseinversion process). For electrolytes containing ceramic filler, 0.4030 gAl₂O₃ (70/30 Al₂O₃/PVDF w/w) was added and bath sonicated for 3 hr usinga 2510 bath sonicator (Branson Ultrasonics Inc.).

For electrodes, the CNFs were probe sonicated in solvent for 1 min at17% amplitude using a Vibra-Cell VCX 750 Probe Sonicator (Sonics andMaterials, Inc.) with a 0.25 in microtip. Active material was thenadded, and the mixture was bath sonicated for 10 min. The suspensionswere shaken by hand several times. The suspension was then either castor printed. Generally, each suspension included 100 mg of activematerial and 5 mL solvent (conductive additive and binder were scaledaccordingly).

For casting, the suspensions were transferred to a 6 cm diameter PTFEdish and dried at 90° C. Once NMP evaporated, the suspensions weresubjected to vacuum at 120° C. overnight for better drying and to removeglycerol. Electrolyte samples (19 mm discs) were punched from castelectrolyte membranes; composite electrode samples (prepared in a mannersimilar to those of Example 8) (9.5 mm diameter discs) were punched fromcomposite electrodes. Typical weights of Li₄Ti₅O₁₂ and LiFePO₄ in eachcomposite electrode sample ranged from 1.5 mg to 3.0 mg, withcorresponding thicknesses ranging from 100 μm to 200 μm (measured by aMitutoyo digital micrometer). Composite electrode samples were assembledversus lithium foil under argon environment (less than 1 ppm H₂O and O₂)in a 2325 coin cell configuration (see FIG. 21). Either the electrolytesample or a commercial polyolefin membrane (CELGARD 2325) were soaked ina liquid electrolyte solution of 1 M LiPF₆ in 1/1 EC/DEC by wt.(Novolyte Technologies Inc.) and used as the separator. Afterfabrication, the cells were allowed to age at least 8 hr beforeelectrochemical cycling in order to allow for homogeneous electrolytewetting.

For printing, direct ink write was performed by extrusion from a syringemounted on a custom Aerotech 3D-motion gantry. Typical motion speedsranged from 5 mm/sec to 20 mm/sec. Extrusion was controlled using anUltimus V pressure pump system from Nordson EFD at pressures rangingfrom 0.5 psi to 5 psi. The syringe tips, also from Nordson EFD, rangedfrom 18 gauge to 25 gauge of 0.25 in stainless steel. Needle geometry,pressure, and print speed were tuned to minimize feature size andmaximize print reliability (reliable extrusion and wetting of ink). Toolpaths were developed in AeroBasic scripting language.

EXAMPLE 15

SEM imaging was performed using a FEI Quanta 600F (FEI, Co.) using themethod described in Example 17 (below). All tensile tests were conductedon a TA Instruments DMA Q800 Dynamic Mechanical Analyzer in displacementcontrol mode with a constant strain rate of 1%/min at room temperature(ASTM D882). Rectangular tensile specimen were cut from compositeelectrodes with dimensions of 20 mm by 3 mm (length by width) using arazor. The finished tensile specimen were examined using a Zeiss StemiDV4 optical microscope to ensure that there were no visible flaws due tocutting. The thickness of each tensile specimen was determined from theaverage of three measurements taken along the gauge length with aMitutoyo micrometer. The surface area and porosity data of the MWNT matwere calculated by a BET method based on N₂ adsorption-desorptionisotherms at 77 K obtained using an ASAP 2020 surface area andporosimetry analyzer (Micromeritics Instrument Corp.).

The samples were degassed at 100° C. under vacuum for 16 hr beforerunning the measurement. Electrical conductivity was performed with aLucas Labs SP4 four-point probe head controlled with a Keithley 2410SourceMeter and a computer operated LabVIEW program. For wettabilityexperiments, a 10 μL drop of liquid electrolyte was placed onto thesamples and spreading of the electrolyte drop was observed.

The coin cells were cycled using a Maccor series 4000 battery testsystem (Maccor, Inc.). LiFePO₄, and Li₄Ti₅O₁₂ were investigated forcycling stability at a constant C/5 current rates ranging between 2.0 Vand 4.3 V and between 1.0 V and 2.1 V vs. Li/Li⁺, respectively. The ratestudies were carried out in a similar manner, with half-cells tested for5 cycles at C/5, C/2, 1C, 2C, 5C, and repeated C/5 for all activematerials. All C-rates were calculated with 1C being defined as 170 mA/gand 175 mA/g for LiFePO₄ and Li₄Ti₅O₁₂, respectively.

EXAMPLE 16

A composite electrolyte according to an embodiment of the presentinvention was prepared by sonicating Al₂O₃ nanoparticles (diameterranging from 40 nm to 50 nm) and PVDF in a mixture of NMP (good solvent)and glycerol (non-solvent). More specifically, KYNARHSV 900 PVDF wasprovided from Arkema Inc. Al₂O₃ powder (40 nm to 50 nm) from NanoDur waspurchased through Alfa Aesar. NMP and glycerol were purchased from SigmaAldrich Co. Glycerol was added as a non-solvent to increase porositythrough phase inversion to aid in the dispersion of Al₂O₃ nanoparticles,and to protect PVDF from dehydrofluorination (glycerol has been shown tointeract strongly with Al₂O₃ by forming a bridging alkoxy bond with oneof the primary alcohols and a hydrogen bond with the secondary alcoholgroup). The solvation layer minimized nanoparticle aggregation and aidedin more uniform dispersion throughout the electrolyte membrane.

The composite electrolytes were prepared by dissolving 0.1726 g PVDF in3 mL NMP (or NMP/glycerol 95/5 w/w for composite electrolytes made withthe phase inversion process). For composite electrolytes comprisingceramic filler, 0.4030 g Al₂O₃ (70/30 Al₂O₃/PVDF w/w) was added and bathsonicated for 3 hr using a Branson 2510 bath sonicator. The suspensionwas then suitable for casting or printing.

The suspension had a high boiling point (greater than about 200° C.) andwas suitable for casting or printing.

For casting, the suspensions were transferred to a 6 cm diameter PTFEdish and dried at 90° C. under nitrogen. Once the NMP had evaporated,the samples were placed in vacuumed at 120° C. overnight to completedrying and to remove glycerol.

Casted electrolyte membranes were punched to 19.0 mm discs and compositeelectrode samples were punched to 9.5 mm diameter discs. Typicalthicknesses of electrolytes used in this study were about 100 μm,although similar performance was observed in thicknesses as low as 30μm. Electrode samples were assembled versus Li foil under argonenvironment (less than 1 ppm H₂O and O₂) in 2325 coin cell configuration(see FIGS. 21 and 21A). Electrolyte membranes and commercially-availableCELGARD 2325 were soaked in a liquid electrolyte solution (1 M LiPF₆ in1/1 EC/DEC by wt. (Novolyte Technologies)) and used as separators.Printed electrode membrane architectures (“PEMAs”) were soaked in liquidelectrolyte and assembled versus Li foil. After fabrication, the cellswere allowed to age at least 8 hr before electrochemical cycling inorder to allow for homogeneous electrolyte wetting.

For composite electrodes prepared using phase inversion, PVDF wasdissolved in 5 mL NMP (or NMP/glycerol 95/5 w/w). Next, the CNFs wereadded and probe sonicated for 1 min at 17% amplitude using a SonicsVibra-Cell VCX 750 Probe Sonicator with a 0.25 in microtip. 100 mgactive material was then added (CNF and PVDF loading was determinedusing the composite wt. ratios listed in the text and figure captions),and the mixture was bath sonicated for 10 min. The samples were shakenby hand several times during the sonication period for more thoroughmixing. Finally, the mixtures were transferred to a 6 cm diameter PTFEdish and dried at 90° C. Once NMP was evaporated, the samples were driedunder vacuum at 120° C. overnight. Composite inks for printing wereprepared using the same procedure as above except the solids loading wasdoubled to increase the viscosity of the mixture and sonicationintensity was increased to 21% for 2 min.

Direct ink write printing was performed by extrusion from a syringemounted on a custom Aerotech 3D-motion gantry. Typical motion speedsranged from 5 mm/s to 20 mm/s. Extrusion was controlled using an UltimusV pressure pump system from Nordson EFD at pressures ranging from 0.5psi to 5 psi and 5 psi to 25 psi for the composite electrode andcomposite electrolyte inks, respectively. The stainless steel syringetips, also from Nordson EFD, were 18 gauge to 25 gauge and 0.25 in to0.50 in in length. Needle geometry, pressure, and print speed were tunedto maximize print reliability and fidelity (reliable extrusion andwetting of the composite electrolyte ink). Composite electrolyte inkswere deposited onto glass substrates that were previously scrubbed withacetone and dried with compressed air. Tool paths were developed in theAeroBasic scripting language.

Multilayer electrolyte prints required specific drying conditions toprevent a first printed layer from swelling subsequent printed layerswere dispensed thereon. Each printed layer was partially dried bycovering with a glass dish and heating to 90° C. for 10 min to 20 min,depending on the amount of ink suspension dispensed. Subsequentlyprinted layers were then dispensed atop the previously printed,partially dried ink.

EXAMPLE 17

FIG. 64 graphically illustrates apparent viscosity as a function ofshear rate of electrolyte inks (Example 16) and highlights an effectcaused by glycerol and nanoparticle addition. Electrolyte inkscomprising only PVDF (PE and PE-PI) displayed nearly identicalrheological properties. The near identical properties suggest glyceroldoes not affect the binder component. Adding 70 wt % of Al₂O₃ to theelectrolyte ink comprising PVDF and NMP (CPE) caused a substantialincrease in apparent viscosity at all shear rates tested (e.g., about14-times increase at 1 s⁻¹), which may likely be due to a flocculatedAl₂O₃ suspension. Glycerol added to this electrolyte ink (CPE-PI)rendered the rheological behavior similar to electrolyte inks containingonly PVDF and solvent. This may suggest the presence of deflocculatedAl₂O₃. As such, glycerol may form a solvation or lubrication layer onthe Al₁O₃ surface that promotes uniformity within the electrolyte ink.Interestingly, the solvation layer also protects PVDF from basic Al₂O₃.

When NMP alone is used to prepare a PVDF/Al₂O₃ composite electrolyte, acolor of the composite turns from white to orange/brown with heateddrying. Such color change may be explained by an Al₂O₃-catalyzeddehydrofluorination reaction in PVDF that forms conjugated double bondsalong the main chain and crosslinking between polymer chains.Dehydrofluorination of PVDF has been associated with undesirableshrinkage and embrittlement, which was observed in compositeelectrolytes comprising PVDF/Al₂O₃ without glycerol.

SEM imaging was used to characterize the cross-sections of threedifferent PVDF-based, electrolytes (PE-PI, CPE, and CPE-PI) prepared inaccordance with Example 16. Exemplary images are provided in FIGS.65A-65F. Cross-sectional SEM imaging was performed using a FEI Quanta600F SEM after cryo-fracturing samples while immersed in liquidnitrogen. Composite electrode samples were imaged at a 5 kV acceleratingvoltage without coating. Electrolyte samples were coated with aconductive 10 nm layer of iridium to avoid charging artifacts, and thecoated samples were imaged using a 5 kV accelerating voltage. Inkrheology measurements were obtained using a TA Instruments ARES-G2Rheometer. A flow sweep method was used to observe the apparentviscosity as a function of shear rate. At ambient temperatures, shearrates varied in a logarithmic sweep from 0.1 s⁻¹ to 100 s⁻¹, with a stepequilibration time of 30 sec. Electrolyte inks were loaded on a 25 mmstainless steel plate with a constant gap of about 0.95 mm. Allmechanical tensile tests were conducted on a TA Instruments DMA Q800Dynamic Mechanical Analyzer in strain control mode with a constantstrain rate of 5%/min at room temperature (ASTM D882). A preload forceof 0.01 N was applied to compensate for any take-up of slack. Compositeelectrode samples were cut into rectangular tensile specimens havinglengths ranging from 10 mm to 12 mm and widths ranging from 3 mm to 4mm, using a razor. The tensile specimens were examined using a ZeissStemi DV4 optical microscope to ensure that there were no visible flawsdue to cutting. The thickness of each tensile specimen was determinedfrom the average of three measurements taken along the gauge length witha Mitutoyo micrometer. The surface area was calculated by the BET methodbased on N₂ adsorption-desorption isotherms at 77 K and obtained usingan ASAP 2020 surface area and porosimetry analyzer (MicromeriticsInstrument Corp.). The samples were degassed at 120° C. under vacuum for16 hr before acquiring the measurement. For wettability experiments, a10 μL drop of liquid electrolyte (1 M LiPF₆ in 1/1 EC/DEC by wt.) wasplaced on the specimens. Spreading of the electrolyte drop was observed.Porosity was measured by completely immersing the sample in liquidelectrolyte overnight and massing after gently wiping excess electrolytefrom the surface of the sample with a paper towel. Samples were massedbefore and after soaking and porosity was calculated as the volume ofthe absorbed liquid over the volume of the dry membrane. A volume ofliquid was calculated with the mass of the absorbed liquid and a densityof 1.22 g/cm³ for liquid electrolyte.

Thermal stability was studied by placing the composite electrolyte andCELGARD 2325 on a hotplate for 5 min while increasing the temperature.Exact temperatures were determined using a non-contact IR thermometer.Shrinkage was monitored by taking photos after each temperature increaseand measuring dimensions of each sample.

Based on the SEM images, the phase inversion process and the inclusionof Al₂O₃ has a significant impact on the resulting morphology. The purepolymer electrolyte (PE-PI; FIGS. 65A and 65B) prepared by phaseinversion was dominated by larger voids (about 5 μm) over the majorityof the pure polymer membrane. Walls of the larger voids comprise aplurality of smaller, cellular pores (FIG. 65B). These structures areschematically represented in FIG. 66A.

In contrast, composite electrolyte morphology became less porous for theCPE having a ceramic and polymer using only good solvent, NMP (FIGS. 65Cand 65D). The SEM image of FIG. 65D indicates Al₂O₃ was clearly present,but PVDF fills potential voids around the ceramic. A schematic model ofthe CPE membrane is shown in FIG. 66B.

When phase inversion was used with Al₂O₃ in preparing the compositeelectrolyte membrane (CPE-PI), a balance between the two aforementionedmicrostructures was achieved, wherein the resulting compositeelectrolyte membrane included many small, submicron pores (FIGS. 65E and65F). Formation of such submicron pores may be explained by the dryingmechanism of the phase inversion process and a strong interactionbetween Al₂O₃ and glycerol. Due to the slower evaporation of the weaknon-solvent (glycerol), a solid-like PVDF phase and a liquid-likeglycerol phase were formed as the good solvent (NMP) evaporated. As thisoccurred, many ceramic particles preferentially occupied the glycerolphase. Since PVDF is insoluble in the glycerol phase, the resultantmembrane was left with small voids between Al₂O₃ particles aftercomplete drying (see, FIG. 66C). Such a hypothesized model is directlysupported by BET specific surface area, S_(BET), which was characterizedfor all of the electrolyte membranes described as well as pure Al₂O₃(FIG. 67). Al₂O₃ and PVDF displayed a S_(BET) of 33 m²/g and 3 m²/g,respectively. CPE exhibited a S_(BET) of only 4 m²/g, which suggeststhat PVDF coated the majority of the Al₂O₃. On the other hand, CPE-PIexhibited a S_(BET) of 17 m²/g (roughly 50% of neat Al₂O₃), which mayindicate the retention of void space between nanoparticles, which canpotentially act as Li⁺ transport pathways.

The neat polymer membrane prepared with good solvent alone (for example,PE) demonstrated limited porosity (21%), and the addition of ceramic inCPE had an insignificant effect on the porosity value (25%). Bothelectrolyte films prepared by phase inversion displayed excellentporosities (greater than 50%), exceeding the porosity ofcommercially-available CELGARD 2325 (38%).

The ionic conductivity of each electrolyte membrane was observed tocorrelate with both the materials used and the solvents present. The useof phase inversion resulted in a two order of magnitude increase inconductivity when applied to similar material compositions. For example,electrolyte membranes comprising CPE exhibited a low conductivity(0.0080 mS/cm) compared to 0.82 mS/cm for electrolyte membranescomprising CPE-PI. Interestingly, while the porosity was the same forelectrolyte membranes comprising CPE-PI and PE-PI, the ionicconductivity was 4-times less in the latter. Even though the majority ofits morphology consisted of large, open pores, the smaller, cellularpores in the electrolyte membrane comprising PE-PI likely reduced theionic conductance. In contrast, electrolyte membranes comprising CPE-PIhad uniform porosity throughout its entire thickness, resulting in thehighest observed conductivities.

TABLE 7 Porosity σ^(b)) E_(a) ^(c)) TS^(d)) ε_(f) ^(e)) SampleComposition Ratio^(a)) Solvent (%) [mS/cm] (kJ/mol) [MPa] [%] CPE-PIPVDF/ 30/70 NMP/ 51 0.82 10.6 5.4 ± 0.3 28.2 ± 1.7  Al₂O₃ glycerol CPEPVDF/ 30/70 NMP 25 0.0080 43.6 14.2 ± 0.7  1.3 ± 0.2 Al₂O₃ PE-PI PVDF100 NMP/ 53 0.20 18.4 3.5 ± 0.2 3.9 ± 0.5 glycerol PE PVDF 100 NMP 210.0017 52.9 32.9 ± 0.6  28.0 ± 2.5  where ^(a))sample ratios by wt %,^(b))room temperature ionic conductivity, ^(c))activation energy, and^(d))tensile strength, and ^(e))strain-to-failure.

Ductility, which is closely related to strain tolerance, is ofparticular concern for applications requiring battery flexibility.Mechanical properties of electrolyte membranes were characterized anddisplayed in FIGS. 68-71 and Table 7. Electrolyte membranes comprisingPE or CPE-PI showed a ductility of about 28%, making these electrolytemembranes suitable for flexible battery applications. Electrolytemembranes comprising CPE or PE-PI, on the other hand, displayed weakenedductility values of 1.3% and 3.9%, respectively. Such low strain may beexplained by the resultant microstructure of PE-PI, which is composedprimarily of large, void-like pores (FIG. 66A). In the compositeelectrolyte membrane comprising CPE, the diminished ductility likelystemmed from a weakening of the polymer and covalent crosslinking ofneighboring PVDF chains due to Al₂O₃-catalyzed dehydrofluorinationrather than an unfavorable pore structure. The resulting embrittlementof the composite electrolyte membrane was reflected in its high modulusrelative to the other membranes (see FIG. 69). The effect was mitigatedin the composite electrolyte membrane comprising CPE-PI by permitting aglycerol solvation shell to surround the Al₂O₃ particles. The tensilestrength of the electrolyte membranes prepared using the phase inversionprocess was decreased as compared to NMP only counterparts, which may beexplained by increased porosity.

The thermal properties of the composite electrolyte membranes were alsoevaluated. The composite electrolyte membranes comprising CPE-PI andcommercially-available CELGARD 2325 were subjected to identical thermaltreatments. As shown in FIG. 72, the latter showed 3% shrinkage at 105°C. and 34% shrinkage at 140° C. The commercially-available materialcontinued to shrink until catastrophic failure occurred (large X ongraph), which is likely due to melting of its constituent polyethyleneand PP layers (133° C. and 158° C. respectively). The large shrinkagebefore reaching the polymer melting points may be explained by shaperecovery behavior resulting from a stretching process used to induceadequate porosity during manufacturing. In contrast, the CPE-PIelectrolyte membrane displayed excellent thermal stability due to thehigh ceramic loading. The shape was retained until temperatures rangingfrom 190° C. to 200° C., at which point only 3% to 5% dimensionalshrinkage was observed. This characteristic satisfies the US AdvancedBattery Consortium's (“USABC”) goal for thermal shrinkage of batteryseparators (less than 5% at 200° C.).

FIG. 73 graphically illustrates the temperature-dependence of ionicconductivity for the electrolyte membranes and thecommercially-available CELGARD 2325. The activation energy for compositeelectrolyte membrane comprising CPE-PI was similar to that of CELGARD2325 (10.6 kJ/mol vs. 10.8 kJ/mol, respectively), which corroborateswith how well the composite electrolyte performed over the range ofC-rates tested (refer to Example 18, below). As such, the mechanism ofionic conduction may involve the diffusion of solvated ions in theliquid electrolyte and may be the same for the CELGARD 2325 and CPE-PI.Electrolyte membranes comprising PE or CPE demonstrated the highestactivation energies (52.9 kJ/mol and 43.7 kJ/mol, respectively) andlowest ionic conductivity. The low ionic conductivity may be attributedto an ionic conduction mechanism in which ions migrate via thestructural relaxation of polymer chains. Finally, the activation energyachieved by electrolyte membranes comprising PE-PI fell between theaforementioned membranes. Given the bimodal pore structure of theelectrolyte membrane comprising PE-PI, consisting of both large andsmall, cellular pores (see, FIG. 66B), it is probable that both ionicconduction mechanisms were invoked.

EXAMPLE 18

Half-cells having composite electrode or electrolyte membranescomprising LiFePO₄ or Li₄Ti₅O₁₂ were cycled using a Maccor series 4000battery test system for investigating cycling stability at a constantC/5 current rate between 2.0 V to 4.3 V and 1.0 V to 2.1 V vs. Li/Li⁺,respectively. The rate studies were carried out in a similar manner,with each half-cell tested for five cycles at C/5, C/2, 1C, 2C, 5C, andrepeat of C/5. All C-rates were calculated with 1C being defined as 170mA/g and 175 mA/g for LiFePO₄ and Li₄Ti₅O₁₂, respectively.

The conductivity cells consisted of two parallel, stainless steelblocking electrodes and a membrane (A=2.85 cm²) soaked with liquidelectrolyte. Cells were allowed to age for at least 8 hr in order toactivate the membrane before measurements were recorded. Temperature wascontrolled by a Tenney environmental chamber and recorded with a k-typethermocouple. The ionic conductivity was measured every 10° C. from 20°C. to 60° C. The conductivity cells were allowed to equilibrate for 1 hrat each temperature before the next measurement was recorded.Measurements were performed with a Gamry Reference 3000 at open circuitpotential by applying an AC-amplitude of 5 mV over a frequency rangefrom 1 Hz to 1 MHz. The ionic conductivity was calculated according toEquation 3:

$\begin{matrix}{\sigma = \frac{t}{R_{b} \times A}} & {{EQUATION}3}\end{matrix}$

where t, R_(b), and A are thickness (cm), bulk resistance (Ω), and area(cm²) of the sample, respectively. Symmetric Li/electrolyte/Li cells fordendritic failure testing were prepared in 2325 coin cells. Electrolytemembranes (12.7 mm diameter) were saturated with liquid electrolyte (1 MLiPF₆ in 1/1 EC/DEC by wt.) and placed between 10.0 mm diameter Li foildiscs. After aging for 8 hr, lithium metal plating/stripping wasachieved by alternating a +0.15 mA/cm² current density (about C/5 rate)for 4.5 hr with a 30 min rest between.

The electrochemical performances of the electrolyte membranes preparedin Example 16 in half-cell configurations using a CC-embedded 40/40/20LiFePO₄/CNF/PVDF electrode (Example 8) were evaluated. The rateperformances and corresponding voltage profiles (FIGS. 74 and 75)suggest that electrolyte membranes comprising CPE-PI promoted Li⁺diffusion kinetics to the same extent as the commercially-availableCELGARD 2325. Both displayed very stable capacities at each C-rate(e.g., 156 mAh/g and 102 mAh/g at C/5 and 5C, respectively, for CPE-PI),as well as flat voltage profiles. This excellent performance directlysupports the hypothesis that Li⁺ diffusion may readily occur through thevoids between neighboring Al₂O₃ particles. In contrast, half-cells withelectrolyte membranes comprising CPE exhibited severely limited rateperformance and, in fact, zero capacity at 2C and 5C. This shortfall inrate performance was attributed to PVDF occupying voids and coating theAl₂O₃ particles, therefore inhibiting transport.

FIGS. 76A-76E illustrate functionality of various electrolyte membranes.In particular, electrolyte membranes comprising PE-PI (FIG. 76E) did notfunction properly as a battery electrolyte. Although highly porous, theelectrolyte membranes comprising PE-PI often failed as a result ofelectrical shorting, likely due to dendritic lithium growth through thelarge pores. To better assess the risk of dendrite formation througheach of the electrolytes prepared, symmetric Li/electrolyte/Li cellswere prepared and subjected to constant lithium metal plating/strippingtest using an alternating ±0.15 mA/cm² current density (about C/5 rate).During the test, PVDF films (PE and PE-PI, FIGS. 76D and 76E,respectively) failed within 85 hr. The addition of Al₂O₃ impededdendritic failure in both CPE and CPE-PI, but the former failed at 500hr (FIG. 76B), whereas the latter functioned without failure throughouta duration of the test (more than 4000 hr, FIG. 76C). One potentialexplanation for the better dendrite suppression and safety of CPE-PIover CPE may be enhanced Al₂O₃ dispersion leading to better tortuosityand more uniform current flow. CELGARD 2325 exhibited failure afterabout 3400 hr (FIG. 76A).

The electrolyte membranes comprising CPE-PI were tested for 100 cyclesat a C/5 current rate, which is graphically illustrated in FIG. 77. Thiselectrolyte membrane maintained comparable performance to thecommercially-available separator throughout the duration of the test,highlighting its excellent stability as a potential high performanceprintable electrolyte.

Wettability of electrolyte membranes comprising CPE-PI and acommercially-available separator were compared by applying the sameamount of liquid electrolyte thereon. The electrolyte membrane showednear complete wet-out within 30 min; the commercially-availableseparator did not wet beyond the initial application site. From acommercial point-of-view, good wettability may shorten the electrolytefilling step during assembly and extend the battery's lifetime, whereaspoor wettability may do the exact opposite by increasing the internalionic resistance.

EXAMPLE 19

Printed electrode membrane assembly (“PEMAs”) were prepared by printinga composite electrolyte (Example 8), surrounding the printed compositeelectrode with a collar of the composite electrolyte (Example 14), andcovering the collared electrode-electrolyte with at least one layer ofthe composite electrolyte (Example 14). Challenges in PEMA fabricationarose from the inherent roughness of the dried electrode ink, which hada surface roughness of over 10 μm. This required the composite electrodeink to be dispensed above the highest feature, causing an unevensurface-to-nozzle distance. However, the higher boiling point solventand the moderate viscosity of the composite electrolyte ink permittedleveling prior to drying. Printed electrolytes and PEMAs were fullydried under vacuum at 120° C., overnight, before use.

In route to batteries fabricated exclusively by an additivemanufacturing process, a PEMA was prepared by depositing a compositeelectrolyte membrane comprising CPE-PI directly over a composite cathodecomprising LiFePO₄. From SEM images (exemplary image provided in FIG.78), it was clear that sequential printing gave rise to a tight andcontinuous interface between the composite electrode and the compositeelectrolyte membrane. The printing process allowed some of the compositeelectrolyte ink to diffuse into the porous, composite electrode, leadingto excellent interfacial adhesion. This finding is highly desirablebecause interlayer contact is the key for discharge voltage stabilityunder mechanical abuse, such as bending or creasing. The phase inversionprocess used to develop the composite electrolyte membrane is imperativein achieving a high performance PEMA. When the composite electrolytemembrane conforms to the porous, composite electrode (specifically here,the cathode), the porosity of the underlying layer is maintained and theelectrochemical performance, as shown in FIG. 79, is similar to wheneach layer (composite electrode versus composite electrolyte membrane)was used separately (see FIGS. 75 and 77). On the contrary, the PEMAperformance suffers when the composite electrolyte membrane is printedfrom good solvent alone. For example, when a composite electrolytemembrane comprising pure poly(vinylidenefluoride-co-hexafluoropropylene) (PVDF-HFP) was printed directly over acomposite electrode comprising PVDF-HFP, the assembly only achievedexpected capacity at very low current rates (about C/20).

The dry phase inversion approach used to prepare high performanceelectrolytes in Example 14 was also directly amenable to printableelectrode inks. When only NMP was used, a composite electrode comprising40/20/40 Li₄Ti₅O₁₂/CNF/PVDF displayed a sharp drop off in both 2C and 5Cperformances. FIG. 80 graphically illustrates that the addition of 5 wt% glycerol led to increased capacity at all C-rates tested andsignificantly improved high rate performance. Additionally, FIG. 81graphically illustrates that the phase inversion process had asignificant impact on mechanical properties. The composite electrodeprepared from only NMP was relatively stiff with a lowstrain-to-failure. Composite electrodes comprising Li₄Ti₅O₁₂ preparedvia the phase inversion process displayed a decrease in tensile strengthbut exhibited a 3-times increase in ductility over its NMP onlycounterpart. The increased ductility for these composite electrodes ledto a higher degree of flexibility without failure, making them moresuitable for applications in flexible electronics. Both the improvedelectrochemical performance and enhanced ductility can be explained bythe increased porosity afforded by the phase inversion process. Whenusing only good solvent, a dense cross-section with limited visiblepores was observed in the SEM image (FIG. 82). This dense morphologyblocks active material and potential Li⁺ diffusion pathways, which canexplain the poor high rate performance. Conversely, when the samecomposites included 5 wt % glycerol, noticeable voids formed throughout,which that facilitated Li⁺ diffusion and allowed better access to theactive material (FIG. 83).

EXAMPLE 20

High-temperature Li-ion batteries, according to embodiments of thepresent invention, were prepared and investigated. LiFePO₄ was purchasedfrom either MTI Corp. or BASF. Li₄Ti₅O₁₂ and commercially-availablegraphite electrodes on copper foil were purchased from MTI Corp. CNFs,commercially-available as PYROGRAF-III (PR-19-HT), were supplied byApplied Sciences, Inc., and graphite was purchased from Asbury GraphiteMills (Ashbury, N.J.) (HPM 850 powder). KYNAR HSV 900 PVDF was suppliedby Arkema, Inc. Al₂O₃ powder (diameters ranging from 40 nm to 50 nm)were purchased from NanoDur through Alfa Aesar. LiTFSI, NMP, glycerol,PC, and EC were purchased from Sigma Aldrich Co.1-methyl-1-propylpyrrolidinium TFSI (“[MPPyr][TFSI]”) was purchased fromIoLiTec, Inc. Conventional liquid electrolyte (LP40, 1 M LiPF₆ in 1/1EC/DEC by wt.), LiBOB, and VC were purchased through BASF.

CPE-PI ink was prepared by dissolving 0.863 g PVDF in 15 mL NMP and 0.64mL glycerol (95/5 w/w). 2.015 g Al₂O₃ (70/30 Al₂O₃/PVDF w/w) was addedand bath sonicated for 3 hr using a Branson 22510 bath sonicator. Theink was then suitable for casting or printing. CPE-PI membranes wereprepared by doctor blading 3 mL of ink on glass using an adjustable filmapplicator (MTI Corp.) with an 800 μm height and dried, overnight, at90° C. under nitrogen. The CPE-PI membranes were then dried, undervacuum, at 120° C. overnight.

Composite electrodes constructed from 40/40/20 active material/CNF/PVDFby wt % were prepared by dissolving 50 mg PVDF in 5 mL NMP. 100 mg CNFswere added and probe sonicated for 1 min at 17% amplitude using a SonicsVibra-Cell VCX 750 Probe Sonicator with a 0.25 in microtip. 100 mgactive material was added and the mixture sonicated for 10 min. Themixtures were shaken by hand throughout sonication. Finally, themixtures were transferred to a 6 cm diameter PTFE dish and dried at 90°C. Once NMP was evaporated, the samples were dried, overnight, undervacuum at 120° C. LiFePO₄ cathodes with active loading (ranging from 13mg/cm² to 15 mg/cm²) were prepared on aluminum foil using a ratio of75/20/5 LiFePO₄/graphite/PVDF by wt %. 56.7 mg PVDF (dissolved in NMP)was combined with 226.7 mg graphite and ground using a mortar andpestle. 850 mg LiFePO₄ was added and the mixture was again ground usinga mortar and pestle for 10 min. The slurry was transferred to an 8×8 cm²area on aluminum foil. The coating was dried under vacuum at 90° C.until NMP evaporated, and then under vacuum at 120° C. overnight.

Electrolyte membrane samples (19 mm diameter discs) were punched fromthe doctor bladed CPE-PI membranes; thicknesses of the electrolytesamples ranged from 50 μm to 90 μm. Composite electrode samples (9.5 mmdiameter discs) were punched from the cast mixtures; weights ofLi₄Ti₅O₁₂ and LiFePO₄ of samples ranged from 1.5 mg to 3.0 mg,corresponding to sample thicknesses ranging from 100 μm to 200 μm asmeasured by a Mitutoyo digital micrometer. Foil-based graphite/Cu orLiFePO₄/Al electrodes were punched to 12.7 mm diameter discs with activeloading ranging from 5.5 mg/cm² to 5.8 mg/cm² for graphite and from 13mg/cm² to 15 mg/cm² for LiFePO₄.

Liquid electrolyte solutions comprising 1 M LiTFSI solutions wereprepared by adding 0.4 g LiTFSI to 1.09 mL PC or RTIL and stirringovernight at 50° C. under argon. 1 M LiBOB in 1/1 EC/PC (v/v) wasprepared by adding 0.252 g LiBOB to 0.545 mL of EC and 0.545 mL of PCunder argon. The mixture was stirred at 120° C. until dissolved.Optionally, 5 wt % VC relative to EC and PC (0.053 mL) was added, whichmay aid in SEI formation and cell reliability.

FIG. 84 is a cross-sectional SEM image of the electrolyte acquired usingan FEI Quanta 600F SEM after cryo-fracturing samples while immersed inliquid nitrogen. The sample was coated with a conductive 10 nm iridiumcoating to avoid charging artifacts and imaged using a 5 kV acceleratingvoltage.

Cells for electrochemical cycling were prepared under argon environment(less than 1 ppm H₂O) and O₂) in 2325 coin cell configurations. CPE-PIor CELGARD 2325 films were infiltrated with either 1 M LiTFSI in PC, 1 MLiTFSI in [MPPyr][TFSI], or 1 M LiBOB in 1/1 EC/PC and used as theseparator. After fabrication, the coin cells were allowed to age for atleast 8 hr before electrochemical cycling, so as to allow forhomogeneous electrolyte wetting.

Coin cells prepared from component described in Example 20 were cycledusing a Maccor series 4000 battery test system. Half-cells based oncomposite electrodes were assembled vs. lithium and cycled for 5 cyclesat 0.17C, 0.33C, 1C, and 3C, and then for 30 cycles at 0.33C. AllC-rates were calculated with 1C being defined as 170 mA/g and 175 mA/gfor LiFePO₄ and Li₄Ti₅O₁₂, respectively. LiFePO₄ was cycled between 2.5V and 4.0 V versus Li/Li+ at all temperatures except 120° C., where a1.35 V to 1.8 V window was used. Foil-based electrode half-cells wereassembled vs. lithium and cycled at 0.17C and 0.33C using a voltagewindow ranging from 2.5 V to 4.0 V for LiFePO₄ and from 0.01 V to 1.0 Vfor graphite. Foil-based graphite//LiFePO₄ full-cells were cycledbetween 2.5 V and 4.0 V at rates of 0.17C, 0.33C, and 1C. All C-ratesfor foil-based cells were calculated using observed capacities with 1Cbeing defined as 330 mA/g for graphite and 150 mA/g for LiFePO₄. Ananode/cathode ratio of 1.10 was desired to avoid lithium plating on asurface of the graphite. Elevated temperature cycling was done using theMaccor battery test system with battery holders extended into an oven(Memmert Beschickung loading model 100-800) using PTFE-coated wires. Fortests using the same cells at different temperatures, cycling was pausedto change the temperature and the cells were permitted to equilibratefor 1 hr at the new temperature before cycling was resumed.

EXAMPLE 21

Undesirable reactions between LiTFSI and aluminum were avoided by usinga CC-embedded composite electrode, such as those having 40/40/20 ratioof active material/CNF/PVDF. While cycling at high temperatures, SEI onlithium decomposes and results in constant SEI reformation, consumptionof liquid electrolyte, and increased likelihood of dendritic lithiumdeposition.

LiFePO₄ (FIGS. 85A and 85B) and Li₄Ti₅O₁₂ (FIGS. 86A and 86B) compositehalf-cells displayed excellent electrochemical performance at both 20°C. and 120° C. for the duration of a 50 cycle test. At 120° C., bothhalf-cells displayed stable capacities (about 150 mAh/g) and flatvoltage profiles with minimal voltage hysteresis (less than 0.06 V) atC-rates ranging from 0.17C to 3C. A difference in charge and dischargecapacity at 0.33C (96% coulombic efficiency) at 120° C. may beattributed to reformation of the SEI reformation on the lithium metalanode.

Referring still to FIGS. 85A-86B, at room temperature LiFePO₄ achieved142 mAh/g and 98 mAh/g at 0.33C and 3C, respectively; Li₄Ti₅O₁₂ achieved128 mAh/g and 77 mAh/g at 0.33C and 3C, respectively. Such roomtemperature performance greatly exceeds other Li-ion battery designsthat offer operation at both room temperature and above 100° C.

Improved functionality of the composite electrolyte membrane for hightemperature cycling is easily appreciated when comparing the results ofFIGS. 85A-86B with data (FIG. 87) from a LiFePO₄ half-cell with 1 MLiTFSI in PC using a CELGARD 2325 separator. The half-cell failed on thefirst charge at 120° C., likely due to thermal shutdown of the pores.

EXAMPLE 22

The CPE-PI electrolyte membrane of Example 19 matrix was infiltratedwith 1 M LiTFSI in [MPPyr][TFSI]. This room temperature ionic liquid(“RTIL”) possesses low viscosity, high ionic conductivity, and has beenshown to have potential as a high temperature Li⁺ transport medium.LiFePO₄ composite electrode half-cells were then prepared with this RTILelectrolyte and electrochemically cycled from room temperature to 120°C.

FIGS. 88A and 88B illustrates the electrochemical performance of thehalf-cells. At 25° C., the half-cell displayed very poor capacity (lessthan 20 mAh/g) at all rates tested. When the temperature increased to55° C., the capacity increased to about 150 mAh/g at low rate (0.33C),but quickly dropped to less than 40 mAh/g at higher current rates. Thehalf-cell exhibited excellent rate performance at 90° C. and 120° C.with 3C capacities of 84 mAh/g and 151 mAh/g, respectively. Thus, whenthe CPE-PI matrix was infiltrated with an RTIL Li⁺ transport medium,good low rate performance was achieved at temperatures slightly aboveroom temperature and excellent high rate performance was achieved attemperatures above 90° C.

EXAMPLE 23

Because full-cells prepared using LiTFSI in PC were unable to achieveone full charge (such as the LiFePO₄//Li₄Ti₅O₁₂ cells), alternativeelectrode and electrolyte formulations were evaluated. As toelectrolyte, a similar cell (using a commercial graphite anode oncopper) was prepared with 1 M LiBOB in PC/EC 1/1 v/v and 5% VC as theelectrolyte. Both EC and PC have boiling points over 240° C., arethermally stable at the elevated temperatures tested. LiBOB, EC, and VChelp to form a stable SEI on graphite anodes and the low melting pointof PC (about −50° C.) keeps the electrolyte solution liquid at roomtemperature.

As shown in FIGS. 89A and 89B, the graphite anode half-cells displayed areversible capacity of 340 mAh/g with excellent cyclability, whichsuggests that LiBOB and EC are capable of preventing graphiteexfoliation (a well know problem when using PC-based electrolytes).

FIGS. 90A and 90B illustrate performance of the electrolyte formulationwhen evaluated using a 75/20/5 LiFePO₄/graphite/PVDF cathode half-cellon aluminum with an active material loading on par with commercialstandards. At 120° C., LiFePO₄ displayed very stable capacities (about150 mAh/g) and flat voltage profiles at 0.17C and 0.33C. Graphite wasused as the conductive additive for these cathodes instead ofconventional carbon black due to its better compatibility with theelectrolyte formulation. LiBOB salt reacts strongly with carbon black(as well as other high surface area carbons) and, thereby,electrochemically reduces onto surfaces between 1.5 and 2.2 V. Such aprocess results in a thick SEI layer that diminishes the electricalconductivity within the electrode, consumes Li⁺, and destructivelydegrades performance.

When compared previously discussed electrolyte formulations according toother embodiments of the present invention (such as 1 M LiTFSI in PC),the LiBOB electrolyte gives rise to exceptional coulombic efficiencies(greater than 99%) for both graphite and LiFePO₄ half-cells, which mayindicate the formation of a more stable SEI on both graphite andlithium.

FIGS. 91A-91C show graphite//LiFePO₄ full-cells prepared using 1 M LiBOBin 1/1 PC/EC and 5% VC electrolyte and cycled at room temperature and120° C. These cells were able to achieve commercially-viable, arealcapacities ranging from 1.5 mAh/cm² to 2 mAh/cm². At room temperature,excellent cyclability and voltage profiles were observed 99.8% coulombicefficiency and little-to-no capacity fade at 0.33C (FIGS. 91A and 91B).At 120° C., the cells displayed stable and flat voltage profiles at0.17C and 0.33C with a 98% coulombic efficiency. Yet, while cycling at120° C., capacity faded linearly over time, which limited long termcyclability of the full-cells. From the evolution of the voltageprofiles, there appears to be a loss of available Li⁺, which decreasesthe cell capacity without affecting the overall properties ofcharge/discharge curves.

FIGS. 92A and 92B are graphical representations of electrochemicalperformance of a graphite//LiFePO₄ cell with 1 M LiBOB in 1/1 EC/PC and5% VC at 90° C. and 120° C. showing the high rate capability (1C) of thesystem. As shown in FIG. 92B, at 90° C., the full-cell displayed stableand flat voltage profiles at rates ranging from 0.17C to 1C.

FIGS. 93A-93D are graphical representations of variable temperaturecycling of graphite//LiFePO₄ cells with CPE-PI containing 1 M LiBOB in1/1 EC/PC and 5% VC and CELGARD 2325 containing LP40 (1 M LiPF₆ in 1/1EC/DEC by wt.). Both systems show demonstrated stable performance fromroom temperature up to 60° C., although the full-cell with LP40-basedelectrolyte begins to show signs of overcharge and low coulombicefficiency at 60° C. (FIG. 93A). Further increasing the temperature to80° C. lead to failure in the LP40-based electrolyte cell after onlyfour cycles. The LiBOB-based cell, on the other hand, maintainedperformance at 80° C. and began to show signs of fading only when thetemperature was increased to 100° C. and 120° C. When the LiBOB-basedcell was cooled to 60° C., a stable capacity with minimal fade wasachieved with excellent coulombic efficiency (greater than 99.7%). Thecoulombic efficiency (FIG. 93B) of the LiBOB-based cell was better thanthe LP40-based cell at all comparable temperatures, which may indicatebetter cell performance and better long-term cyclability of theLiBOB-based cell. The voltage profiles of both cells are displayed inFIGS. 93C and 93D. The LiBOB-based cell (FIG. 93C) shows similarcharge-discharge behavior (shape, hysteresis, and so forth) compared tothe cell prepared with commercially-available components (FIG. 93D) atall temperatures studied. This suggests that the liquid electrolyte ofthe present embodiment may be a suitable replacement for electrolytesused in commercial full-cells.

EXAMPLE 24

Flammability of conventional separators (such as CELGARD 2325) andseparators prepared in accordance with embodiments of the presentinvention was evaluated. In FIG. 94A, a conventional separator 260 with1 M LiPF₆ in 1/1 EC/DEC and a separator 262 comprising CPE-PI, preparedaccording to an embodiment of the present invention, with 1 M LiBOB in1/1 PC/EC and 5% VC are supported on a conventional set of tweezers 264.Each separator 260, 262 was lightly touched with a flame (not shown)from a commercially-available, handheld lighter (not shown) for lessthan 1 sec. As shown in FIG. 94B, after flame exposure, the conventionalseparator 260 ignited and shrank behind the tweezers 264. The CPE-PIseparator 262 did not ignite nor shrink, but did warp slightly.

In FIG. 95A, two dry CELGARD 2325 separators 270, 272 and a dry CPE-PIseparator 274 (according to an embodiment of the present invention) arearranged on a surface 276. Again, each separator 270, 272, 274 waslightly touched with the flame (not shown) from thecommercially-available, handheld lighter (not shown) for less than 1sec. Both CELGARD 2325 separators 270, 272 shrivel and shrink; theCPE-PI separator 274 warps slightly but remains intact.

While the present invention has been illustrated by a description of oneor more embodiments thereof and while these embodiments have beendescribed in considerable detail, they are not intended to restrict orin any way limit the scope of the appended claims to such detail.Additional advantages and modifications will readily appear to thoseskilled in the art. The invention in its broader aspects is thereforenot limited to the specific details, representative apparatus andmethod, and illustrative examples shown and described. Accordingly,departures may be made from such details without departing from thescope of the general inventive concept.

What is claimed is:
 1. A method for fabricating a composite electrolyte,the method comprising: preparing a suspension comprising: a solventcomprising 90 wt % to 95 wt % of a total weight of liquids; anon-solvent comprising 5 wt % to 50 wt % of a total weight of liquids; abinder comprising 20 wt % to 50 wt % of a total weight of the compositeelectrolyte, the binder being selected from the group consisting ofPVDF, PVDF-HFP, PFTE, PEO, PMMA, PAN, CNC, SBR, and combinationsthereof; and a ceramic filler comprising 50 wt % to 80 wt % of the totalweight of the composite electrolyte, the ceramic filler having across-section diameter ranging from 50 nm to 150 nm and being selectedfrom the group consisting of Al₂O₃, SiO₂, TiO₂, MgO, Li₂O, LiAlO₂,BaTiO₃, LaGP, LATP, LLTO, and combinations thereof; casting or printingthe suspension; and drying the suspension.
 2. The method of claim 1,wherein printing the suspension further comprises: direct ink write,filamentary, ink jet, aerosol jet, stencil print, screen print, slotdie, and doctor blade.
 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the ceramicfiller comprises particles having a maximum dimension that ranges from10 nm to 100 μm.
 4. The method of claim 1, wherein the solvent isselected from a group consisting of NMP, DMF, DMAc, tetramethyl urea,dimethyl sulfoxide, triethyl phosphate, and combinations thereof.
 5. Themethod of claim 4, wherein the non-solvent is selected from a groupconsisting of glycerol, water, ethanol, methanol, ethylene glycol,diethylene glycol, triethylene glycol, hexane, heptane, and combinationsthereof.
 6. The method of claim 1, wherein a final thickness of theprinted or cast composite electrolyte ranges from about 50 μm to about60 μm.